Where's everybody gone?
On 10 Aug 2006 09:19:09 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>I ... have never traded sex for weed. It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-) |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: > >>>>Thanks for sharing your little anecdotes about your cat humping your > >>>>hand and cankles. TMI. > >>> > >>>I have never had a cat do that to me. Care to try again? > >> > >>Why are you so defensive about it? > > > > I'm not. > > Yes, you are. You're the one who's perceiving it as defensive. Why? I merely corrected your incorrect statement. Why do you see more meaning to things than there actually is? Are you a paranoid type of person? > >>>You just don't like gays no matter what. > >> > >>Dogs don't. Neither do most other normal male animals. > > > > You know, many men who hate gays are afraid that if they look inside > > themselves, > > What studies can you cite to support this wild claim? Google it. You'll find plenty. If you were completely comfortable in your heterosexuality, you wouldn't be so afraid of gays. > > they might find they are ***. > > I know for a fact I'm not. What basis do you have for your dislike of gays who are doing nothing to infringe on your right to say no to them? > > Do you hate women > > No. You're not a psychologist. You're a 40-something layabout pothead > whose claim to fame is beta-testing software that didn't make the cut. You're obviously really stretching to make insults. > > you're not > > attracted to, are do you just treat them neutrally? > > One of my training partners is a ******* whom I've known since I was a > teenager. She's not a lipstick ******* at all. I don't find her > attractive, never have. But we get along very well, which is why we've > been friends for so long. I've never "hated" her, my ******* neighbors, > my *** friends, or anyone else who didn't give me plenty reason to cause > me to have contempt. Why do you fear *** men but not *******s? Why do you hate *** men in general? They did nothing to cause you contempt. > Case in point. Go back to the very first few posts I made in response to > your incessant blithering a couple years ago. I offered to let you > correct your errors when you lashed out at me for no reason. You > wouldn't correct your lies, and you wouldn't even apologize. You > willfully chose enmity instead of amity. You're transparent. You're nastiness comes through in your posts. You're always angry and you can't take what you dish out. What lies do you claim I told? > > Why can't you just treat *** men neutrally? > > Do you still beat your ____ (husband, child, pets, neighbors, parents, > siblings, etc.)? What the **** are you talking about? I think it's obvious that you're just here to insult. That's not a good way to make any good points you think you have. > > Why are you so scared of them? > > I'm not afraid of anyone, you stupid bitch. No? They say anger is just a form of fear. > >>>You're a little too sure of yourself. Care for a toke and open your > >>>mind a bit? > >> > >>It doesn't open your mind; it fries it. You're an example of why it's not a good idea. > > > > Well > > See me suck Goo's little stub. I'm a flaming queer when no one's looking. Hmm. What I see is you editing my response in order to insult. That means it's fair game to do that to you. |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: > > I am not 46, > > Forty-four. Forty-five. You're getting pretty dang close to 46. And "the > change," if you're not going through it now. It's time you got your facts straight. I see that you're hoping that I'm afraid of aging. I'm not. I still celebrate each birthday with joy. For you to use age as an insult indicates that you think aging is something to be afraid of. That means that for you, life will just keep getting worse and worse until you die. |
Where's everybody gone?
wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > >>Rupert wrote: >> >>>Leif Erikson wrote: >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Rupert wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[..] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>>>>>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>>>>>>>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>True >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful >>>>>>>>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I didn't imply that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not >>>>>>>>clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual >>>>>>>>context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of >>>>>>>>"respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you >>>>>>>>declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It was my attempt at interpreting your position. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your >>>>>>>position. Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me. >>>>>> >>>>>>Derek - Rupie does a lot of ordering people not to talk to him. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Liar and coward. >>>> >>>>No. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I have never ordered you not to talk to me, >>>> >>>>Liar. >>>> >>>> "stop talking to me" >>>> Rupert, psychotic rainman >>>> http://tinyurl.com/jgtbz >>> >>> >>>Yes, well, we'll let that link speak for itself, shall we? >> >>Yes, well, rupie, that link establishes that you >>ordered me to stop talking to you, and that you are a >>liar for having said you never told me that. >> > > > No, that's complete fantasy on your part. No, rupie. You lied. The link shows it. > > >>You're a bossy little bitch, rupie, but no one really >>considers you the boss. Go **** yourself, you sick >>little dweeb. > > |
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On 10 Aug 2006 09:19:09 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >I ... have never traded sex for weed. > > It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure > he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-) I doubt he'll agree, because the purpose of his lies are to insult rather than state a fact. It's a frequent occurance for him to do this to me. If he's trying to make a valid point of something, it's not working from my perspective. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky whiffed and lied:
> > >>>>Thanks for sharing your little anecdotes about your cat humping > > >>>>your hand and cankles. TMI. > > >>> > > >>>I have never had a cat do that to me. Care to try again? > > >> > > >>Why are you so defensive about it? > > > > > > I'm not. > > > > Yes, you are. > > You're Established. > > >>>You just don't like gays no matter what. > > >> > > >>Dogs don't. Neither do most other normal male animals. > > > > > > You know, many men who hate gays are afraid that if they look > > > inside themselves, > > > > What studies can you cite to support this wild claim? > > Google it. Whif. > You'll find plenty. Whif. > If you were completely comfortable in > your heterosexuality, you wouldn't be so afraid of gays. Non sequitur and I'm not "afraid of gays." ****. > > > they might find they are ***. > > > > I know for a fact I'm not. > > What basis do you have I know for a fact that I am not. I also know for a fact that many of my friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., are homosexual. Some are very open about it, others a lot less so. That isn't a criterion upon which I base friendship. You ignorant ****. > > > Do you hate women > > > > No. You're not a psychologist. You're a 40-something layabout > > pothead whose claim to fame is beta-testing software that didn't > > make the cut. > > You're obviously really stretching What's obvious to you isn't exactly what's obvious to others to whom you've either admitted or demonstrated your age, your drug addiction, your sloth, your (im)maturity, your self-marginalization, your lack of a work ethic, your propensity to blame others for your inability to live according to your own standards, your stubborn refusal to practice what you preach, your endless pontificating about things over which you've demonstrated absolute ignorance (saving animals and the environment, veganism, etc.), and even your wasting years of your life creating "avatars" for other deadbeats who wrap themselves up in weird fantasy cyber worlds because they're too lazy, mentally unstable, or mentally ill to function in the real one. You're self-deluded into thinking you're a normal functioning adult. Your protracted admissions, though, paint a much different -- and sadder -- picture. > > > you're not > > > attracted to, are do you just treat them neutrally? > > > > One of my training partners is a ******* whom I've known since I > > was a teenager. She's not a lipstick ******* at all. I don't find > > her attractive, never have. But we get along very well, which is > > why we've been friends for so long. I've never "hated" her, my > > ******* neighbors, my *** friends, or anyone else who didn't give > > me plenty reason to cause me to have contempt. > > Why do you fear *** men but not *******s? I don't fear anyone, asshole. > > Case in point. Go back to the very first few posts I made in > > response to your incessant blithering a couple years ago. I offered > > to let you correct your errors when you lashed out at me for no > > reason. You wouldn't correct your lies, and you wouldn't even > > apologize. You willfully chose enmity instead of amity. > > You're transparent. That's rich coming from someone who has a drug addiction, is slothful, lacks maturity, practices the art of self-marginalization, lacks a good work ethic, has a propensity to blame others for an inability to live according to her own standards, stubbornly refuses to practice what she preaches, endlessly pontificates about things over which she's demonstrated absolute ignorance (saving animals and the environment, veganism, etc.), and even admits to wasting years of her life creating "avatars" for other deadbeats who wrap themselves up in weird fantasy cyber worlds because they're too lazy, mentally unstable, or mentally ill to function in the real one. > > > Why can't you just treat *** men neutrally? > > > > Do you still beat your ____ (husband, child, pets, neighbors, > > parents, siblings, etc.)? > > What the **** Who says I don't treat *** men "neutrally"? > > > Why are you so scared of them? > > > > I'm not afraid of anyone, you stupid bitch. > > No? No. > > >>>You're a little too sure of yourself. Care for a toke and open > > >>>your mind a bit? > > >> > > >>It doesn't open your mind; it fries it. You're an example of why > > >>it's not a good idea. > > > > > > Well Established: drugs have been bad for Skanky. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
> > > I am not 46, > > > > Forty-four. Forty-five. You're getting pretty dang close to 46. And > > "the change," if you're not going through it now. > > It's time you got your facts straight. My facts are straight. Do you still believe importing Lundberg rice from California to Toronto saves the lives of animals? Haha. Stupid skag. > I see that you're hoping that I'm afraid of aging. Why the hell would I hope that you have fears, you dopey ****? I don't hold out any HOPE for you. Neither do your parents. > I'm not. Woohoo, I'm so relieved to know that. /drippingsarcasm > I still celebrate each birthday with joy. You'll have to start moving your cakes outdoors because of the fire danger from all those candles. > For you to use age as an insult indicates that you think aging > is something to be afraid of. Non sequitur. Not surprising that you don't think so clearly after smoking pot. > That means that for you, life will just > keep getting worse and worse until you die. A bad day for me is still much better than a good day for you. |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: > > You're > > Established. You snipped so much that you're not making any sense. But that's Usual. :) > > Google it. > > Whif. > > > You'll find plenty. > > Whif. I guess you're scared of what you'll find. > > If you were completely comfortable in > > your heterosexuality, you wouldn't be so afraid of gays. > > Non sequitur and I'm not "afraid of gays." ****. Why do you hate gays and use being *** as an insult? > > > > they might find they are ***. > > > > > > I know for a fact I'm not. > > > > What basis do you have > > I know for a fact that I am not. I also know for a fact that many of my > friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., are homosexual. Some are very > open about it, others a lot less so. That isn't a criterion upon which > I base friendship. You ignorant ****. I'd bet money that you treat *** men differently than straight ones. > > > > Do you hate women > > > > > > No. You're not a psychologist. You're a 40-something layabout > > > pothead whose claim to fame is beta-testing software that didn't > > > make the cut. > > > > You're obviously really stretching > > What's obvious to you isn't exactly what's obvious to others to whom > you've either admitted or demonstrated your age, your drug addiction, > your sloth, your (im)maturity, your self-marginalization, your lack of > a work ethic, your propensity to blame others for your inability to live > according to your own standards, your stubborn refusal to practice > what you preach, your endless pontificating about things over which > you've demonstrated absolute ignorance (saving animals and the > environment, veganism, etc.), and even your wasting years of your life > creating "avatars" for other deadbeats who wrap themselves up in weird > fantasy cyber worlds because they're too lazy, mentally unstable, or > mentally ill to function in the real one. You're self-deluded into > thinking you're a normal functioning adult. Your protracted admissions, > though, paint a much different -- and sadder -- picture. Admissions to your claims above? Nope. Try again, or show where I have claimed to be slothful, immature, no work ethic and all the other lies you use in an attempt to insult me. > > > > you're not > > > > attracted to, are do you just treat them neutrally? > > > > > > One of my training partners is a ******* whom I've known since I > > > was a teenager. She's not a lipstick ******* at all. I don't find > > > her attractive, never have. But we get along very well, which is > > > why we've been friends for so long. I've never "hated" her, my > > > ******* neighbors, my *** friends, or anyone else who didn't give > > > me plenty reason to cause me to have contempt. > > > > Why do you fear *** men but not *******s? > > I don't fear anyone, asshole. Asshole? Did I press a trigger button for you? Hit a little too close to home? Hahah. > > > Case in point. Go back to the very first few posts I made in > > > response to your incessant blithering a couple years ago. I offered > > > to let you correct your errors when you lashed out at me for no > > > reason. You wouldn't correct your lies, and you wouldn't even > > > apologize. You willfully chose enmity instead of amity. > > > > You're transparent. > > That's rich coming from someone who has a drug addiction, is slothful, > lacks maturity, practices the art of self-marginalization, lacks a good > work ethic, has a propensity to blame others for an inability to live > according to her own standards, stubbornly refuses to practice what > she preaches, endlessly pontificates about things over which she's > demonstrated absolute ignorance (saving animals and the environment, > veganism, etc.), and even admits to wasting years of her life creating > "avatars" for other deadbeats who wrap themselves up in weird fantasy > cyber worlds because they're too lazy, mentally unstable, or mentally > ill to function in the real one. Strawman. You claim crazy things about me and then knock it down. I'm not surprised. > > > > Why can't you just treat *** men neutrally? > > > > > > Do you still beat your ____ (husband, child, pets, neighbors, > > > parents, siblings, etc.)? > > > > What the **** > > Who says I don't treat *** men "neutrally"? Have you never used ***/queer/homo etc. as an insult to men? If not, then my mistake, but I'm pretty sure you have. > > > > Why are you so scared of them? > > > > > > I'm not afraid of anyone, you stupid bitch. > > > > No? > > No. Why are you so defensive about this? :) > > > >>>You're a little too sure of yourself. Care for a toke and open > > > >>>your mind a bit? > > > >> > > > >>It doesn't open your mind; it fries it. You're an example of why > > > >>it's not a good idea. > > > > > > > > Well > > Established: drugs have been bad for Skanky. Are you a good example of what abstinance does? If so, I better smoke another joint! I don't want to ever be like you, all miserable and insulting. Would some prune juice help you? Maybe if you weren't constipated, you wouldn't be such a miserable little ****! |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote:
> My facts are straight. Do you still believe importing Lundberg rice > from California to Toronto saves the lives of animals? Haha. Stupid > skag. Nothing wrong with Lundberg rice. And they do cause less environmental/animal harm than other rice companies. > > I see that you're hoping that I'm afraid of aging. > > Why the hell would I hope that you have fears, you dopey ****? I don't > hold out any HOPE for you. Neither do your parents. You are always on the lookout for things that can be used to insult people. You claim to have communicated with my parents. You are lying of course, but just for the hell of it, care to cite? Didn't think so. > > I'm not. > > Woohoo, I'm so relieved to know that. > /drippingsarcasm I suspect you're disappointed that you were not successful in your attempt to insult. > > I still celebrate each birthday with joy. > > You'll have to start moving your cakes outdoors because of the fire > danger from all those candles. You're using age as an insult again. That indicates, as Usual, that you see aging as something very negative. I hate to break it to you, but you're not getting any younger. It will only get worse for you. > > For you to use age as an insult indicates that you think aging > > is something to be afraid of. > > Non sequitur. Not surprising that you don't think so clearly after > smoking pot. I think I have completely outed you as someone who fears aging, and who thinks that old age is an insult. > > That means that for you, life will just > > keep getting worse and worse until you die. > > A bad day for me is still much better than a good day for you. I doubt that very much. You're a miserable little potty-mouthed shit who can't possibly be feeling any good emotions. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
> > > You're > > > > Established. > > You snipped You've written little or nothing that merits a response. > > > Google it. > > > > Whif. > > > > > You'll find plenty. > > > > Whif. > > I guess You guess you cannot support your claims. As usual. > > > You're obviously really stretching > > > > What's obvious to you isn't exactly what's obvious to others to whom > > you've either admitted or demonstrated your age, your drug > > addiction, your sloth, your (im)maturity, your > > self-marginalization, your lack of a work ethic, your propensity to > > blame others for your inability to live according to your own > > standards, your stubborn refusal to practice what you preach, your > > endless pontificating about things over which you've demonstrated > > absolute ignorance (saving animals and the environment, veganism, > > etc.), and even your wasting years of your life creating "avatars" > > for other deadbeats who wrap themselves up in weird fantasy cyber > > worlds because they're too lazy, mentally unstable, or mentally ill > > to function in the real one. You're self-deluded into thinking > > you're a normal functioning adult. Your protracted admissions, > > though, paint a much different -- and sadder -- picture. > > Admissions Yes, you've admitted to nearly all of those; the rest were gleaned from other stuff you'd written elsewhe being carless, for instance. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
> > My facts are straight. Do you still believe importing Lundberg rice > > from California to Toronto saves the lives of animals? Haha. Stupid > > skag. > > Nothing wrong with Lundberg rice. Unless you want to save animals and the environment. You're like Al Gore, though: a fat windbag who talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...re-green_x.htm > And they do cause less > environmental/animal harm than other rice companies. Ipse dixit and based on their sales literature, not on any established fact. You want to brag about how they don't burn straw? Cool, NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER CAL-RICE FARMER BECAUSE THAT'S THE LAW IN CALIFORNIA. Stupid ****ing dense bitch... > > > I see that you're hoping that I'm afraid of aging. > > > > Why the hell would I hope that you have fears, you dopey ****? I > > don't hold out any HOPE for you. Neither do your parents. > > You are always on the lookout My life doesn't revolve around "hoping" anyone, much less some drug-addled bitch in Toronto who rides the bus because she doesn't have a car and whose life revolves around make-believe cyber worlds and getting stoned, has fears. You dopey ****. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
> I think I have completely outed you as someone who fears aging, You've not "outed" me about anything, ****. > and who thinks that old age is an insult. Quite the contrary. Most people become wiser as they age. You, though, haven't. It's not your age which is at issue, it's your (a) level of immaturity, (b) lack of success, (c) mindset that thinks people your age who've attained homes and property are "lucky." Luck has nothing to do with saving and planning. You aren't "unlucky" because you don't have as much stuff as people your age normally do; you've just made poor decisions and squandered your life dabbling in phony cyber-worlds instead of engaging in the real one. Loser. |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: > Yes, you've admitted to nearly all of those; the rest were gleaned from > other stuff you'd written elsewhe being carless, for instance. What a crock of shit. Cite or shut up. Oh yeah, you can't because you're lying just to insult. Do you remember that girlfriend of your's that you were caught lying about? You know, when you said you had a girlfriend for four years, and then Derek proved you to be lying? Your word can't be trusted. 'Gleaned' in this case means "I made it up as a strawman to knock you down". |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: > My life doesn't revolve around "hoping" anyone, much less some > drug-addled bitch in Toronto who rides the bus because she doesn't > have a car and whose life revolves around make-believe cyber worlds > and getting stoned, has fears. You dopey ****. Admit it, you have no life. You do not identify as a vegetarian, so what the **** are you doing on this newsgroup????? I'll tell you. You just like being argumentative. Why don't you hang out on groups that pertain to your interests and hobbies (if you have any)? Get a life. You might actually find yourself happy for once. |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: > I'm a loser who has to pick on other people illogically in order to avoid thinking about my lack of hobbies and interests. Yeah, I know, it must suck being you. If you were a nicer person, I'd feel sorry for you. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
> I'm a loser Tell us something we don't already know. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
> > My life doesn't revolve around "hoping" anyone, much less some > > drug-addled bitch in Toronto who rides the bus because she doesn't > > have a car and whose life revolves around make-believe cyber worlds > > and getting stoned, has fears. You dopey ****. > > Admit it, you have no life. 1. I don't do drugs. You do. 2. I don't take the bus. You do. 3. I have my own transportation. You don't. 4. I'm grounded in reality and don't need "avatars" to express myself in one of your phony cyber-worlds. You don't care much for reality so you make up your own and abuse your mind with drugs. I have a life. You don't. Loser. > You do not identify as a vegetarian These groups aren't limited to vegetarians. Look at them again, you smeggy dumb ****: talk.POLITICS.animals, alt.animals.ETHICS.vegetarian. They're not dedicated to one-sided arguments where specious idiots like you can make unchallenged statements about how animals are saved because you're shipping in bananas and exotic spices from far away instead of living honestly according to your shitty, bogus principles. As it is, you've been shown many times how your own consumption violates every "principle" you've preached about and your response in every circumstance is that you won't change your personal consumption because it would take too much effort. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
> > Yes, you've admitted to nearly all of those; the rest were gleaned > > from other stuff you'd written elsewhe being carless, for > > instance. > > What a crock of shit. Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel. > Do you remember that girlfriend of your's No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still together, you stinky old ****. |
Where's everybody gone?
On 11 Aug 2006 08:19:58 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 10 Aug 2006 09:19:09 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> >I ... have never traded sex for weed. >> >> It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure >> he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-) > >I doubt he'll agree, because the purpose of his lies are to insult >rather than state a fact. I made a bad joke. Rather than trading "sex for weed", which you obviously deny, I implied that chico may have made a mistake and got things the wrong way round, meaning you trade "weed for sex" instead. It's a frequent occurance for him to do this >to me. If he's trying to make a valid point of something, it's not >working from my perspective. |
Where's everybody gone?
ruptured mcscrotum is @ yahoo.com wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > > rupertmccallum, prating windbag, wrote: > > > > > chico chupacabra wrote: > > > > > >>Rupert wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>chico chupacabra wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Rupert wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>chico chupacabra wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic" > > >>>>>>sectarian, disingenuously wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>><snip> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think > > >>>>>>>about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an > > >>>>>>>issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does > > >>>>>>>not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and > > >>>>>>>reasoned. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't? > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Erikson has actually contributed something intellectually worthwhile to > > >>>>>the debate? I must have missed it. > > >>>> > > >>>>You did, dumbass. > > >>> > > >>>Point me to it then. > > >> > > >>Find it yourself. > > >> > > >> > > >>>And don't insult me, > > >> > > >>Why not? > > > > > > If you want to be childish and pathetic, go ahead. > > > > You have a big headstart with your childish, "Apologize now or I won't > > reply anymore," followed by 20+ more replies making your childish demands. > > > > It's not childish. It's childish, rupture. > > >>>you obnoxious asshole. > > >> > > >>Silly ****. > > >> > > >> > > >>>Having > > >>>missed a post (if that's what I've done) is not evidence of stupidity. > > >> > > >>Debatable, especially since Mr Erikson, whom I thought you were supposed > > >>to be ignoring, is your better. > > > > > > That is absolutely hysterical. > > > > Hysterical? Not sure about that, because in a way it's sad that you're > > acting like a small child with your "apologize now" tantrums. > > > > It's not a tantrum. It's a tantrum, rupture - a tantrum that includes a whole lot of foot stamping one usually doesn't see in anyone past the age of three. > > > Only someone on the same level as Mr. > > > Erikson, such as yourself, could think that. Your opinion, like all > > > your contributions to this thread, is absolutely worthless. > > > > Yet you find the time to make the same inane demands of me that you've > > made to others. Why is it not beneath you to respond to those whose > > opinions you neither appreciate nor respect? > > > > For the most part it is. I'll respond whenever I feel like responding. As will I, rupture - as will I. |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote:
> Rupert wrote: >> Dutch wrote: <snip> >>> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which >>> innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with >>> respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." (Regan) >>> --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully >>> depriving a >>> person of their life. >> Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the >> wrongness of murder consists in its illegality? > No, he's just stated that depriving someone of life without just > cause -- which usually means self-defense, capital punishment where due > process has been observed, etc. -- makes it wrong. Actually, that *wasn't* what Dutch said. What he said was, in fact, that a murder is wrong if the victim is killed *unlawfully*. This is technically true in a legal sense, but not necessarily true in a moral sense. A killing may be lawful, but not moral ( the classic example is the murder of Jews in the death camps). OTOH, a killing may be unlawful but moral in some ethical systems, although there will be more argument about a specific example. People who carry out "honor killings" feel their action is entirely moral, even morally obligatory, even if it is illegal, for example. Dutch made no mention at all of "without just cause" -- which may not be identical to "legal" in any case. What Regan says is that it is the violation of the moral right to respectful treatment which makes murder wrong, not whether it is lawful or unlawful. However, he does not say, as Derek claims, that lack of respect, without a specific action, is a rights violation. "...their right to be treated..." requires treatment -- that is, a concrete action. |
Where's everybody gone?
Karen Winter wrote:
Did you take the wheels off your trailer or do you just keep them hidden behind a skirt (assuming your "community" requires you to skirt your trailer)? |
Cyber-worlds?
Scented Nectar -- we all know Leif/Chico/whoever it is pretending to be today/ invents a lot of stuff, but is there any truth in its claim you create avatars for online roleplaying? Sounds cool. I might like to check it out, depending on exactly what's involved. Google? <snip> |
well, lesley?
Lesley stumbled:
> > While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your > > take on > > Guess. Tell us how all these UK-Muslim terror suspects are involved with Skull and Crossbones, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bildeburgers, the (defunct) Nazi Party of Germany, Sears & Roebuck, Lee Harvey Oswald, Tarrytown UMC, and the Mickey Mouse Club. |
Cyber-worlds?
Karen Winter wrote:
> Skanky -- we all know Leif/Chico/whoever You know we're two distinct people, hundreds of miles apart. > is pretending to > be today/ invents a lot of stuff, No need to do that since, in your case, truth is much stranger than fiction. > but is there any truth in its claim > you create avatars for online roleplaying? Sounds cool. I might > like to check it out, depending on exactly what's involved. Google? Look at her piece-of-shit website. |
Cyber-worlds?
Karen Winter blabbered:
> Scented Nectar -- we all know Leif/Chico/whoever Senor Chupacabra and Mr. Erikson are two different people, Karen. You know this. > invents No. First of all, we don't "invent" anything. Second of all, since we are two different people, you have used the wrong person of the verb: "invent", not "invents", but of course we don't invent anything. > a lot of stuff, but is there any truth in its claim you > create avatars for online roleplaying? Sounds cool. I might like to > check it out, depending on exactly what's involved. Google? Life's getting a little dull down on Calle Mejia, is it? Why don't you get a job? It looked like there was quite an industrial complex right behind you there; someone must need a receptionist. |
Cyber-worlds?
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Karen Winter blabbered: > > Scented Nectar -- we all know Leif/Chico/whoever > > Senor Chupacabra and Mr. Erikson are two different people, Karen. You > know this. > > > invents > > No. First of all, we don't "invent" anything. Second of all, since > we are two different people, you have used the wrong person of the > verb: "invent", not "invents", but of course we don't invent anything. > > > > a lot of stuff, but is there any truth in its claim you > > create avatars for online roleplaying? Sounds cool. I might like > > to check it out, depending on exactly what's involved. Google? > > Life's getting a little dull down on Calle Mejia, is it? Why don't > you get a job? It looked like there was quite an industrial complex > right behind you there; someone must need a receptionist. Receptionist?? And throw away all the experience she's gained shampooing stray cats? |
well, lesley?
Les-Ali has no answer, only goofy conspiracy theories:
>>>While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your >>>take on >> >>Guess. > > Tell us how all these UK-Muslim terror suspects are involved with Skull > and Crossbones, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Council > on Foreign Relations, the Bildeburgers, the (defunct) Nazi Party of > Germany, Sears & Roebuck, Lee Harvey Oswald, Tarrytown UMC, and the > Mickey Mouse Club. How many of the following "Zionists" are members of Skull and Crossbones and the New World Order, spray chemtrails over your tilting shack, attend CFR and Bildeberger meetings, and carry the American Express Gold Card? Abdula Ahmed Ali Cossor Ali Shazad Khuram Ali Nabeel Hussain Tanvir Hussain Umair Hussain Umar Islam Waseem Kayani Assan Abdullah Khan Waheed Arafat Khan Osman Adam Khatib Abdul Muneem Patel Tayib Rauf Muhammed Usman Saddique Assad Sarwar Ibrahim Savant Amin Asmin Tariq Shamin Mohammed Uddin Waheed Zaman You foot-rubbing retard. |
well, chumpo?
"chico chupacabra" stumbled > stumbled in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > > While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your > > > take on > > > > Guess. > > Tell us how all these UK-Muslim terror suspects 'Dirty Neo-Fascist Slugs Slam-Dunk Another Terror Scam Evening round-up of twilight zone manic spewing propaganda blitz August 10 2006 Numerous questions need to be asked about this latest attempt by the dirty Neo-Fascist slugs to bully people into placating to being treated like slaves and updates on the frothing propaganda being spewed by the news networks need to be quantified. For what it's worth, Drudge currently has this on his front page.... CNN: 'Don't use your cellphone within 50 feet of a suspicious object, you might detonate something'... Absolute twilight zone irrational bullshit. ABC News and FOX aren't done with this one yet. ABC says five deadly terror suspects on the loose - that's not enough for FOX who say ten are on the run. Reports differ as to when the supposed plot was discovered - BBC says Bush spoke to Blair about it some days ago - other reports say its been known for weeks. Known for weeks - and yet SNAP - all the ridiculous measures about hair gel, baby milk and water bottles are implemented on a whim. A decision had been made to introduce this latest fraud exactly on time this morning. If it was such a deadly imminent plot why did they wait to put these measures in AFTER the arrests has already taken place? BBC: "Security chiefs said the group believed to be planning the attack had been under surveillance for some time." The terrorists were caught engaging in a dry run before the attack. This translates as 'the patsies were making sure they got noticed' - actor James Woods tried to alert the authorities to a similar drill before 9/11 but was ignored. Bush's comments are totally transparent. "The American people need to know we live in a dangerous world, but our government will do everything we can to protect our people from those dangers." The men pointing sub-machine guns at old ladies are here to help. Display the proper level of obedience to your government and we will protect you from the terrorists. Impinge on our ability to 'defend' America and something might go boom boom. This latest PR scam will subside into implausible buffoonery within days - every other major terror alert that we have encountered is always exposed as a monumental fraud and we see no other eventuality. http://www.infowars.net/articles/Aug...terrorscam.htm Terror Plot Mirrors Bojinka: Run By US Government Agent http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...terrorplot.htm Seven Morons In A Warehouse Sears Tower: US Government Creates Another Al-Qaeda Cell Cooked Canary Wharf Terror Plot Recycled Canadian 'Terror Plot' Begins To Unravel Hyped Terror Raid Proves To Be Paper Tiger Toledo Terrorists and Government Entrapment Twenty-Three Intel Experts Say LA Terror Plot a Sham Bush Plays Terror Card With Bogus LA Attack Plot NYC Subway "Plot": Just Another Fake Terror Alert ALSO SEE: FAKE TERROR ALERTS ARCHIVE http://www.infowars.net/articles/Aug...00806Alert.htm Now explain how |
well, chumpo?
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> Les-Ali has no answer, Unlike you, I do have a life. > only goofy conspiracy theories: 'Britain's airline terror plot: Questions that need to be answered By the Editorial Board 11 August 2006 The claim that American and British security forces have thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up commercial flights between Britain and the United States should not be accepted uncritically. It is impossible to determine at this point whether or not such an attack was in the offing, although the mass media have, as usual, reported the assertions of the British and American governments as indisputable fact, without bothering to ask for any specific information that would substantiate the official story. The British police statement that the alleged plotters aimed to "create mass murder on an unimaginable scale" by blowing up mid-flight an unspecified number of aircraft is chilling. The far-reaching security measures that have been implemented-including the shutdown of London's Heathrow Airport and an indefinite ban on carry-on luggage - add to the climate of fear and apprehension. At a time such as this- in the midst of spectacular claims from London and Washington, a media barrage supporting them, and a massive disruption of commercial flights resulting from extreme security measures - it is all the more imperative that people not suspend their capacity for critical thought and political judgement. .... President George Bush made a brief statement mid-day Thursday that was calculated to heighten public anxieties and exploit the alleged terror plot to justify the panoply of reactionary policies his administration has pursued since 9/11 in the name of the "war on terror." Speaking on an airport runway in Green Bay, Wisconsin, he said that the thwarted plot was a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom." He suggested that the plot vindicated the measures- massive domestic spying, military tribunals, detentions without trial- taken by his administration to "protect the American people," and went on to warn that "it is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America." The World Socialist Web Site has no information that allows us to make a definitive judgement on the existence or non-existence of a terrorist plot on the scale claimed. However, it is the responsibility of the US and British governments to produce the facts that would substantiate their allegations and justify the extreme security measures they have taken, and to present these facts to the public in a clear and concise manner. They have produced no such factual account or substantiation. Neither the White House nor Downing Street has any right to expect people to accept their claims at face value, or place confidence in any of their statements. The war against Iraq was legitimised on the basis of false claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. These lies have destroyed forever the credibility of Bush and Blair. If it is true that such a heinous crime was being planned, the responsibility for this ultimately rests with the policies pursued by Washington and London. Ever since 9/11, both Bush and Blair have employed the mantra of the "war on terror" as a cover for their predatory war aims in the Middle East, immensely intensifying anti-American and anti-British sentiment within the Muslim world. At the same time, the "war on terror" has been used domestically as the pretext for an unprecedented assault on democratic rights. Faced with a worsening debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq, and massive international opposition to their support for Israel's devastation of Lebanon, both governments have an interest in perpetuating an atmosphere of hysteria. Such a climate serves to intimidate their opponents and justify ever more draconian measures at home and abroad. In point of fact, the official accounts in Britain of the alleged terror plot lack any specific or verifiable facts and are remarkably short on detail. .... No such questions have been asked by the media. And yet recent months have seen a number of alleged terrorist plots- in the US, Canada and Australia- that were supposedly thwarted by the security services. In each case, mass arrests were made of people who, according to the indictments, had merely discussed terrorist acts. No concrete plans were discovered, no weapons or explosives seized. And in most of these cases, the supposed plots were initiated and encouraged by government informers who acted as agent provocateurs and entrapped the alleged conspirators. In the case of July's so-called "tunnel bomb" plot in New York, the purported conspirators were foreign nationals who had never set foot in the US. As for the political utility of the current terror scare, it should be noted that only hours before Thursday's raids, British Home Secretary Reid gave a major speech in London in which he accused opponents of the government's anti-democratic legislation of undermining the "war on terror." In the face of what he called "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war," Reid decried those who "don't get it," blaming them for the fact that "we remain unable to adapt our institutions and legal orthodoxy as fast as we need to." Making it clear that the required "adaptation" meant the gutting of traditional democratic rights, he added: "Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/au...lond-a11.shtml |
Where's everybody gone?
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral >> >> philosophy >> >> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of >> >> others >> >> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit. >> > >> > It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to >> > be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when >> > trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I >> > brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights >> > violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case. >> >> You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled >> quagmire >> of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the >> equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example. >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which >> innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with >> respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." >> >> --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully depriving >> a >> person of their life. >> > > Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the > wrongness of murder consists in its illegality? No, the judgments of wrongness and illegality are derived from the same moral reasoning. It's wrong *and* illegal to deprive a person of their life because every person has a right to their life and property, *unless* you have a defensible reason to do so. |
Where's everybody gone?
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> > >> [..] > >> > >> >> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral > >> >> philosophy > >> >> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of > >> >> others > >> >> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit. > >> > > >> > It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to > >> > be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when > >> > trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I > >> > brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights > >> > violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case. > >> > >> You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled > >> quagmire > >> of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the > >> equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example. > >> > >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which > >> innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with > >> respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." > >> > >> --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully depriving > >> a > >> person of their life. > >> > > > > Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the > > wrongness of murder consists in its illegality? > > No, the judgments of wrongness and illegality are derived from the same > moral reasoning. It's wrong *and* illegal to deprive a person of their life > because every person has a right to their life and property, *unless* you > have a defensible reason to do so. So you're saying murder is wrong because it violates the right to life, and you think that's a better account than Regan's claim that it's wrong because it violates the right to respectful treatment. Is that right? |
Where's everybody gone?
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral >> >> >> philosophy >> >> >> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of >> >> >> others >> >> >> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit. >> >> > >> >> > It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed >> >> > to >> >> > be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when >> >> > trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I >> >> > brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights >> >> > violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case. >> >> >> >> You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled >> >> quagmire >> >> of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the >> >> equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example. >> >> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which >> >> innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated >> >> with >> >> respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." >> >> >> >> --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully >> >> depriving >> >> a >> >> person of their life. >> >> >> > >> > Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the >> > wrongness of murder consists in its illegality? >> >> No, the judgments of wrongness and illegality are derived from the same >> moral reasoning. It's wrong *and* illegal to deprive a person of their >> life >> because every person has a right to their life and property, *unless* you >> have a defensible reason to do so. > > So you're saying murder is wrong because it violates the right to life, > and you think that's a better account than Regan's claim that it's > wrong because it violates the right to respectful treatment. Is that > right? Pretty much, yes. I'm not campaigning in support of disrespect, I just don't think it's a sound foundation for rights. There is plenty of disrespectful treatment right here on newsgroups, much of it well-deserved, some perhaps not. The idea that I should be morally or legally restricted from hating you or calling you a ****ing asshole if that's how I feel about you is scary, bounding on totalitarianism. I don't need that kind of protection, or those kinds of constraints. I think a solid core a well-defined rights is what serves us best, not subjective terms like "respect". |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: > Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel. Your fear of aging is showing again. > > Do you remember that girlfriend of your's > > No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still > together, you stinky old ****. How come you claimed to be with her for 4 years, when it was shown you were looking for a girlfriend only a couple of years ago? You never did explain that one. Hahah, liar. |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: >a bunch of crap. You just keep on proving that you're a miserable little boy. You seem to have a need to try to put other people down so that you can feel better than them. That doesn't work on people like me who are happy with their lives. I'm glad I'm not you. |
Where's everybody gone?
Scented Nectar wrote:
> cheeky upchuck wrote: > >>Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel. > > > Your fear of aging is showing again. No. YOU have aged badly. No one would want to follow your shitty example. > > >>>Do you remember that girlfriend of your's >> >>No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still >>together, you stinky old ****. > > > How come you claimed to be with her for 4 years Because he was, and now it's longer. |
Cyber-worlds?
Glorfindel wrote: > Scented Nectar -- we all know Leif/Chico/whoever it is pretending to be > today/ invents a lot of stuff, but is there any truth in its claim you > create avatars for online roleplaying? Sounds cool. I might like to > check it out, depending on exactly what's involved. Google? > > <snip> Hi Glorfindel. I used to make avatars for a program called 3dAnarchy/Atmosphere. It was a 3d live chat and build program. Unfortunately it was discontinued. I have a memorial page for it at http://www.scentednectar.com/atmo/index.htm These days I'm using ActiveWorlds as my 3d live chat and build program of choice. I don't know how to make avatars for it, but have made a lot of objects and textures. I have a page on it at http://www.scentednectar.com/aw/index.htm I think it's the best program of its kind currently out there, especially since you can build on much huger pieces of land than in the competition (like Second Life). The people there are generally much nicer than the trolls on the newsgroups here. You can enter, explore and chat in many of the worlds for free as a 'tourist'. A 'citizenship' is fairly cheap, and with that you can build whatever you want in the public building worlds. My fave public build world is Alphaworld. It is the virtual size of California, and there is tons of open space to claim and build on. Power users buy their own (expensive) worlds, but I find my needs met by just having a cit. If you become a cit, you can also do things like whisper and send telegrams and other stuff. If you check it out, the 2 main chatting areas are Alphaworld's Ground Zero, and the Gate. Both are moderated, but if you chat with people in remote areas or whisper or telegram, it's not censored. Maybe I'll run into you there. :) |
Where's everybody gone?
cheeky upchuck wrote: >Usual crap I no longer think I'll be getting a pickup truck, but who knows. I used to have an SUV and enjoy driving large vehicles. Hahah, I made you google. Do you have a hate-on for public transportation? Do you hate it for being environmentally friendly, or just because you feel a car must be used in order for you to feel superior? Just what is your problem with someone taking a streetcar sometimes? Seriously, I think you see it as a sign of accomplishment if driving a car. Why is that? Do you have a fear of being carless? Do you see cars as being representative of some sort of success? |
Where's everybody gone?
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> > >> >> [..] > >> >> > >> >> >> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral > >> >> >> philosophy > >> >> >> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of > >> >> >> others > >> >> >> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit. > >> >> > > >> >> > It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed > >> >> > to > >> >> > be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when > >> >> > trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I > >> >> > brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights > >> >> > violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case. > >> >> > >> >> You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled > >> >> quagmire > >> >> of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the > >> >> equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example. > >> >> > >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which > >> >> innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated > >> >> with > >> >> respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." > >> >> > >> >> --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully > >> >> depriving > >> >> a > >> >> person of their life. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the > >> > wrongness of murder consists in its illegality? > >> > >> No, the judgments of wrongness and illegality are derived from the same > >> moral reasoning. It's wrong *and* illegal to deprive a person of their > >> life > >> because every person has a right to their life and property, *unless* you > >> have a defensible reason to do so. > > > > So you're saying murder is wrong because it violates the right to life, > > and you think that's a better account than Regan's claim that it's > > wrong because it violates the right to respectful treatment. Is that > > right? > > Pretty much, yes. I'm not campaigning in support of disrespect, I just don't > think it's a sound foundation for rights. There is plenty of disrespectful > treatment right here on newsgroups, much of it well-deserved, some perhaps > not. I don't think this is what Regan has in mind when he's talking about "respectful treatment". > The idea that I should be morally or legally restricted from hating you > or calling you a ****ing asshole if that's how I feel about you is scary, > bounding on totalitarianism. I don't need that kind of protection, or those > kinds of constraints. I think a solid core a well-defined rights is what > serves us best, not subjective terms like "respect". Well, you might be right. Arguably saying that all rights derive from the right to respectful treatment doesn't illuminate the matter as much as just giving a case-by-case definition of what the rights are. It depends on how clear a definition Regan can give of "respectful treatment". I don't know whether he's tried to do that anywhere. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter