WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Basic Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 05-04-2016, 04:26 PM
Prodigalson's Avatar
Prodigalson (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Humboldt Co., CA
Posts: 2,009
Thanks: 205
Thanks 357
Default


Hmm... never really thought about it before, but would there really be a problem with like-minded people banding together and forming their own little societies, to preserve and promulgate their culture and identity?

African-Americans are encouraged to, Asians always have, immigrants from south of the border do, Muslims do it. Also, gays in San Francisco, Catholic Italians in New York...Native Americans were forced to...

Are white Christians the only ones to be discriminated against?

__________________
Mr. Ed said I should use his signature, since he's not anymore. In honor of his good friend Nok, here it is: "As far as smoking a cigar," she said, "I'd not know where to start or how to start." "It's simple," said I, "You light one end and chew on the other and hope to meet in the middle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Prodigalson; 05-04-2016 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-04-2016, 04:43 PM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All those groups have their own governments and laws? If so, that's really big news!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-06-2016, 02:01 PM
Prodigalson's Avatar
Prodigalson (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Humboldt Co., CA
Posts: 2,009
Thanks: 205
Thanks 357
Default

Yes, as a matter of fact, most of them do.

But they choose to be here, instead, under our government and laws which, while perhaps not put together in the most politically correct (by today's standards) way, have still provided the basis for a society which, all their bitching aside, they'd rather live in than their own.
__________________
Mr. Ed said I should use his signature, since he's not anymore. In honor of his good friend Nok, here it is: "As far as smoking a cigar," she said, "I'd not know where to start or how to start." "It's simple," said I, "You light one end and chew on the other and hope to meet in the middle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-06-2016, 02:59 PM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

None of the groups you mentioned try to promote "states rights" or talk about "scaleable republics" or have militia camps in Wyoming etc.

The only people who do that are a certain subset of white Christian men like Mohican who pine for the good old days when they had all the power. You can go back and read his comments. I'm not going to bother repeating them.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-07-2016, 04:52 PM
Prodigalson's Avatar
Prodigalson (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Humboldt Co., CA
Posts: 2,009
Thanks: 205
Thanks 357
Default

Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
The only people who do that are a certain subset of white Christian men...
I guess that could mean everyone else, all bitching aside, is satisfied with the way things are.

I think Mohican has a point, though. 'Diversity' is more of a pipe-dream than anything else. When you put people of different habits, customs, beliefs, religions -- whatever together, there are going to be conflicts. Our constitution says we have to let everyone be themselves, and many groups have used this freedom to 'come out', as it were.

Now, however, it is being pushed further. Not only do we have to allow various things, we are now not even supposed to express our disapproval of them, and are punished if we do. There is a difference between condoning someone else's right to be or behave a certain way, and wanting it to happen in your front room, while your children are taught that not only are these things acceptable, but that they are the preferred way.

If some people want a community of like-minded souls, I say let them -- as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's space. White Christian men like Mohican are offering up a way to do that, where no one has to be offended by them, yet you take offense at that?

Sounds like persecution, to me.
__________________
Mr. Ed said I should use his signature, since he's not anymore. In honor of his good friend Nok, here it is: "As far as smoking a cigar," she said, "I'd not know where to start or how to start." "It's simple," said I, "You light one end and chew on the other and hope to meet in the middle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-07-2016, 06:32 PM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Originally Posted by Prodigalson View Post
I guess that could mean everyone else, all bitching aside, is satisfied with the way things are.
I never said that. And I think it would be incredibly naive to say everyone is or ever could be satisfied. Of course, that can never happen. But you have to start somewhere.

In another thread, Mohican asked "Has desegregation and anti discrimination laws ended strife?"

And what would have been the alternative? Let the Jim Crow states desegregate in their own sweet time? You can only take a question like that to mean one thing. You figure it out.

Originally Posted by Prodigalson View Post
I think Mohican has a point, though. 'Diversity' is more of a pipe-dream than anything else. When you put people of different habits, customs, beliefs, religions -- whatever together, there are going to be conflicts. Our constitution says we have to let everyone be themselves, and many groups have used this freedom to 'come out', as it were.
So is the answer dividing ourselves into little groups of people who govern according to a specific set of narrow-minded beliefs?

There's no way that can work from a practical standpoint. At some level we need to get along despite our differences -- to have a functioning economy and infrastructure and to compete on a global level. Any hope to exist or thrive as a nation must be based on common interests, not differences.

Originally Posted by Prodigalson View Post
Now, however, it is being pushed further. Not only do we have to allow various things, we are now not even supposed to express our disapproval of them, and are punished if we do. There is a difference between condoning someone else's right to be or behave a certain way, and wanting it to happen in your front room, while your children are taught that not only are these things acceptable, but that they are the preferred way.
What "various things" are you talking about? What is it you don't want to see happen in your front room? Please clarify. Are we talking about trying to impose morality based on a specific belief system? Does that sound good to you?

Maybe you wouldn't want your child to play with the adopted child of the gay couple who lives across the street—because they're going to somehow think that's the "preferred way?"

Originally Posted by Prodigalson View Post
If some people want a community of like-minded souls, I say let them -- as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's space. White Christian men like Mohican are offering up a way to do that, where no one has to be offended by them, yet you take offense at that?

Sounds like persecution, to me.
What is Mohican "offering" exactly? That we divide up into little groups, each governed by a specific set of beliefs and moral standards? How and where is this supposed to happen? Are you going to pack up and move when you find yourself in a "community of like-minded souls" who doesn't want you there or who wants you to conform to their beliefs and way of life?

Now who's talking about "pipe dreams."

Get fucking real man. When you say like-minded you mean narrow minded. What Mohican is talking about is the belief that races and religions etc. or people who are otherwise different shouldn't live together and try to coexist. It's totally fucked up, racist, bigoted bullshit.

I live in a neighborhood made up of multiple races, religions, nationalities, sexual orientations. You name it. We've come together countless times to protect our collective quality of life. It can happen at the community level among people who are open-minded and otherwise enlightened. But you think it might be a good idea to put ourselves into little self-imposed ghettos? Wow.

Otherwise, just watch a community of Muslims try to implement Sharia Law and see who's first to shit their pants...

Last edited by Binx B; 05-07-2016 at 07:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-08-2016, 03:43 AM
Prodigalson's Avatar
Prodigalson (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Humboldt Co., CA
Posts: 2,009
Thanks: 205
Thanks 357
Default

Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
...In another thread, Mohican asked "Has desegregation and anti discrimination laws ended strife?"

And what would have been the alternative? Let the Jim Crow states desegregate in their own sweet time? You can only take a question like that to mean one thing. You figure it out.
I may be wrong, but I would take that question as an attempt to get at something deeper, such as the basis for the animosity between people of different races. I think he's trying to point out that you can't legislate people into liking each other.

Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
So is the answer dividing ourselves into little groups of people who govern according to a specific set of narrow-minded beliefs?

There's no way that can work from a practical standpoint. At some level we need to get along despite our differences -- to have a functioning economy and infrastructure and to compete on a global level. Any hope to exist or thrive as a nation must be based on common interests, not differences.
I would think that, by allowing people to join together in like-minded communities, there would be a possibility of greater cooperation on a national and global level. People who aren't rubbing each other the wrong way at home are much more likely to get along at work.



Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
What "various things" are you talking about? What is it you don't want to see happen in your front room? Please clarify. Are we talking about trying to impose morality based on a specific belief system? Does that sound good to you?
First off, I should point out that 'we', as I used it, refers to a hypothetical 'we'. Personally, I couldn't give a hoot about most of the things that upset other people, but I'm interested in what drives conflict.

That said, I think most people that object to say, homosexuality, really couldn't care less who boffs who, at home, but when a bakery has to shut down because they wouldn't bake a cake for someone, and children at school are not taught how to think, but what to think, people tend to want to pull away.

Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
Maybe you wouldn't want your child to play with the adopted child of the gay couple who lives across the streetóbecause they're going to somehow think that's the "preferred way?"
Well, if I chose who my children played with based on criteria like that, we'd have all missed out on some good friendships. The 'preferred way' I mentioned referred to what a nephew was being taught at school.



Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
What is Mohican "offering" exactly? That we divide up into little groups, each governed by a specific set of beliefs and moral standards? How and where is this supposed to happen? Are you going to pack up and move when you find yourself in a "community of like-minded souls" who doesn't want you there or who wants you to conform to their beliefs and way of life?
But this is exactly the situation a person who doesn't approve of, say, mixing races in marriage, would find themselves in, should they live in your neighborhood. Does tolerance for other people's beliefs only extend to those beliefs we approve of?

Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
Get fucking real man. When you say like-minded you mean narrow minded. What Mohican is talking about is the belief that races and religions etc. or people who are otherwise different shouldn't live together and try to coexist. It's totally fucked up, racist, bigoted bullshit.
I think anyone, if they have to, can get along in tight quarters. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a country where we are free to choose our associations (supposedly). You choose to associate with like-minded people who happen to be various races, etc, etc, but you refuse to allow someone else the same option because you don't approve of his associations?

I could see where that might be considered racist, bigoted bullshit.

Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
I live in a neighborhood made up of multiple races, religions, nationalities, sexual orientations. You name it. We've come together countless times to protect our collective quality of life. It can happen at the community level among people who are open-minded and otherwise enlightened. But you think it might be a good idea to put ourselves into little self-imposed ghettos? Wow.
But you have. You've put yourself in a community of like-minded individuals (who just happen to be of different groups), and you've decided that, unless they think like you, no one else deserves to have the same thing.
__________________
Mr. Ed said I should use his signature, since he's not anymore. In honor of his good friend Nok, here it is: "As far as smoking a cigar," she said, "I'd not know where to start or how to start." "It's simple," said I, "You light one end and chew on the other and hope to meet in the middle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-08-2016, 05:24 AM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Originally Posted by Prodigalson View Post
I think anyone, if they have to, can get along in tight quarters. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a country where we are free to choose our associations (supposedly). You choose to associate with like-minded people who happen to be various races, etc, etc, but you refuse to allow someone else the same option because you don't approve of his associations?

I could see where that might be considered racist, bigoted bullshit.
I think you're missing the point again. My initial comments weren't about how neighborhoods or communities are formed in a country "where we are free to choose our associations."

I was specifically referring to Mohican's belief that dividing the country up into multiple independent territories of some kind with their own laws and governments might be a good idea.

Again, who are the only people who want to do that? As far as I know, a certain subset of white, Christian men who want to impose their beliefs and "traditions" through the force of their own little government.

If they could do it on larger scale, by turning back the clock on desegregation and anti-discrimination laws at a state or national level, they would. But they can't, so they have this little fantasy of banding together and doing it on smaller scale. Just ask the militia guys in Wyoming or wherever. I'm sure they'd be happy to tell you all about it.

Last edited by Binx B; 05-08-2016 at 05:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-08-2016, 05:49 AM
Prodigalson's Avatar
Prodigalson (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Humboldt Co., CA
Posts: 2,009
Thanks: 205
Thanks 357
Default

Considering the fact that they don't want to impose their beliefs and traditions on anyone else, but merely wish to be left alone, and have proposed a way for that to work, and especially considering the fact that, in his system, you and your neighbors would be free to build your own little society where everything would be hunky-dory for you, too -- what's the problem?

Apparently, it's that he doesn't agree with you, so you think he's fucked up.But, as long as he's not infringing on your right to happiness, he can think and do whatever he pleases (within the law).

He is proposing a legal way for everyone to be able to associate with like-minded people, while still being able to cooperate between groups, and you don't like it, so you think he should live your way.

What happened to tolerance?
__________________
Mr. Ed said I should use his signature, since he's not anymore. In honor of his good friend Nok, here it is: "As far as smoking a cigar," she said, "I'd not know where to start or how to start." "It's simple," said I, "You light one end and chew on the other and hope to meet in the middle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-08-2016, 06:50 AM
CandraH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In an all-inclusive society people, whether they like each other or not, will band together and accept each other's oddities because humans work and live better together.

In an exclusive society people will only accept those who are the same as them into their group and will exclude those they disapprove of.

In an evolutionary sense, the all inclusive group will survive because they dont exclude others and their numbers will grow as they work and breed together. Those who exclude will lose numbers and inbreed until there are fewer of them than the inclusive group. Therefore, they'll evolve themselves out of existence.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
  #71  
Old 05-08-2016, 07:00 AM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Originally Posted by Prodigalson View Post
What happened to tolerance?
I think the desire to divide up into mini-states based on our differences pretty much embodies a lack of tolerance.

But I'm sure we both know it's a fantasy and not remotely practical. Even if such a thing was possible, it would no doubt lead to oppressive little regimes that would mistrust each other and constantly be at odds, where people who are different aren't welcome or even allowed. The idea that there would be cooperation between them and that everything would be hunky dory in such places is incredibly naive.

"My way" is to try to live together despite our differences, as messy as that can be. And anti-discrimination laws can be quite messy, but I believe having them is better than the alternative or what Mohican is suggesting.

It's all about fear of losing power and finding out what it might be like to be a minority. And the solution is to go start your own little theocracy. To me it sounds like a sad little delusion.

Of course, "he" has a right to think what he pleases. And I have a right to say I think it's kind of fucked up.

Last edited by Binx B; 05-08-2016 at 07:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-11-2016, 09:10 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Binx, you're whole argument boils down to "if you're not down with the multi cult, then you are a racist and a bigot, blah, blah blah.

Thinking in scale is not about, or not just about being "around your own kind" as you think it alludes to.

The number of representatives of the US House of Representatives was fixed by law in 1911 (took effect in 1913 at..... 435.

Now matter how much the population grows - the number stays at 435.

If I share a representative with 800,000 other people then I am not being represented.

You are acting like this little experiment is working swimmingly - and that if government were to shrink that things would go badly.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-11-2016, 09:44 AM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If the goal of smaller, more localized or "scaleable" governments is REALLY about efficiency and a more workable ratio between representatives and citizens, then I think it has merit. If it's mostly about division and excluding people who are different than you are, it sounds like a bad idea to me. When you use terms like "multi-cult," it's not hard to see the underlying intention.

It's the same with "states rights" — which has been invoked over issues like segregation, creationism, gay marriage and so-called family values, even the recent nonsense over the confederate battle flag. Again, only one group of people continues to blow that dog whistle.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-11-2016, 10:10 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

No, it's a means for rigid thinking narrow focused people to shut off discussion.

If I wanted to go down the Wyff/BInxB road of intellectual nihilism - some bad people want states rights, therefore anyone who wants stronger states/weaker national government obviously wants the return of JIm Crow.

You are very quick to skim and throw out snap judgements, or perhaps that is as deep as you're able to go.

And I lol'd at your dog whistle. The people that invoke "dog whistle" are themselves using it or hearing it.

A few years back, in a weeks time I went to both the State of the State dinner and address (by a Republican Governor) and then a few days later to the annual meeting of the NAACP for a fairly large city. (edited to add - invited by people at the top of each of these organizations.) Both events had speakers talking about "dog whistles" used by the other side, and both groups of people laughed and stomped their feet when they heard "dog whistle".

So using that doesn't make you insightful. Probably just programmed.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.

Last edited by Mohican; 05-11-2016 at 10:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-11-2016, 10:41 AM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh, I thought we were discussing it. If I'm trying to shut you off, it doesn't seem to be working very well, does it?

You're the one using "multi-cult" and "states rights" etc. in the same context. Don't be miffed if someone infers that you're talking about the fear of being overrun by foreigners and all the other threats to our "traditions" rather than "stronger states/weaker national government." I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. You're saying it.

And I wouldn't claim that saying "dog whistle" makes me insightful. It's more like stating the obvious. So maybe you're right. It's just a regular old whistle and anyone who's paying attention can hear it.

Last edited by Binx B; 05-11-2016 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-11-2016, 10:57 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default


Originally Posted by Binx B
...In another thread, Mohican asked "Has desegregation and anti discrimination laws ended strife?"

And what would have been the alternative? Let the Jim Crow states desegregate in their own sweet time? You can only take a question like that to mean one thing. You figure it out.
I'm glad that dragging things from one thread to an other is gonna be alls kosher.....

For a system to continue, you have to evaluate it. But you honestly have to evaluate it.

So you have to ask questions that are often uncomfortable, because the solutions might not be comfortable, or even easy.

The easiest way to avoid this is to of course denigrate the person asking the questions.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-11-2016, 11:32 AM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First of all, I'm quite comfortable, thank you.

Of course, desegregation and anti-discrimination laws haven't ended strife. Obviously, some people will resent the laws and others will think they haven't gone far enough. Shall we put you in the former category, for at least some of them anyway?

If so, what's your evaluation and what are the potential solutions?

See? I'm not avoiding anything. The opposite really. This is your chance!

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
The easiest way to avoid this is to of course denigrate the person asking the questions.
And I think I could consider you saying "perhaps that is as deep as you're able to go" or that I'm "probably just programmed" as some attempt to denigrate me. Just maybe, if I was the sensitive type. So, yeah, it kind of cuts both ways.

Last edited by Binx B; 05-11-2016 at 01:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
wyf (05-11-2016)
  #78  
Old 05-11-2016, 10:08 PM
wyf's Avatar
wyf (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Official Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: UK, bottom half
Posts: 1,098
Thanks: 135
Thanks 125
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
So you have to ask questions that are often uncomfortable, because the solutions might not be comfortable, or even easy.

The easiest way to avoid this is to of course denigrate the person asking the questions.
maybe, Mohican, you're mistaking being asked uncomfortable questions as being denigrated.

And I think you're trying to dismiss counter-arguments by pretending to be intellectually superior.

maybe you are intellectually superior. But that doesn't make you right, and it doesn't stop you giving the impression of being a smug bigot. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that's how you project yourself. You might want to do something about that.
__________________
How wrong it is for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself. ~ Anais Nin
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-12-2016, 02:34 PM
wyf's Avatar
wyf (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Official Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: UK, bottom half
Posts: 1,098
Thanks: 135
Thanks 125
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
No, it's a means for rigid thinking narrow focused people to shut off discussion.
Really? That's how I see your arguments.

The problem (or advantage, for you) is that you can sit there smugly espousing something you'll never have to experience. You can pretend that life would be better if your only government was the village elder.

Over here in the UK we're facing the choice as a reality. Scotland had a referendum for independence (rejected - not everybody wants a shrinking state). Wales wants the same choice. We are facing the choice of whether to leave the EU or remain part of the European Superstate.

You can sit there and sagely stroke your chin in your most intellectual way but your arguments are just ivory tower pontificating because you'll never have to experience the downsides of your ideals.
__________________
How wrong it is for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself. ~ Anais Nin
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-13-2016, 06:54 AM
CandraH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Has desegregation and anti discrimination laws ended strife?"

Just out of curiosity. Did anyone ever actually believe desgregation or anti-discrimination laws would end strife? Or did they just feel it was better to have all members of society on an equal footing regardless of the possible strife element?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
wyf (05-13-2016)
  #81  
Old 05-13-2016, 09:20 AM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'll say it before someone else does:

"But there's no such thing as an equal footing!"

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-13-2016, 03:41 PM
Binx B
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by Binx B; 05-14-2016 at 01:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-08-2016, 08:23 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,980
Thanks: 1,312
Thanks 377
Default

Originally Posted by wyf View Post
In the guns and gods thread Mohican said that gun ownership was a right bestowed on him by god.

What rights do we think, regardless of who (or what) gives them, are inalienable (apart from guns!!)?
Agency (for all)
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-15-2016, 12:01 PM
Prodigalson's Avatar
Prodigalson (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Humboldt Co., CA
Posts: 2,009
Thanks: 205
Thanks 357
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Agency (for all)
Yeah -- but a lot of good agency (the freedom or ability to make choices) does without the ability to implement them.

So pretty much a useless right, but in reality the only one we are truly given.
__________________
Mr. Ed said I should use his signature, since he's not anymore. In honor of his good friend Nok, here it is: "As far as smoking a cigar," she said, "I'd not know where to start or how to start." "It's simple," said I, "You light one end and chew on the other and hope to meet in the middle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Prodigalson For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (08-15-2016)
  #85  
Old 08-15-2016, 03:02 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,980
Thanks: 1,312
Thanks 377
Default

Originally Posted by Prodigalson View Post
Yeah -- but a lot of good agency (the freedom or ability to make choices) does without the ability to implement them.

So pretty much a useless right, but in reality the only one we are truly given.
Yep!
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-15-2016, 07:18 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Agency (for all)

Are you using agency as a term for suffrage? Or just being represented in some form?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-15-2016, 07:37 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,980
Thanks: 1,312
Thanks 377
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Are you using agency as a term for suffrage? Or just being represented in some form?
I suppose the best analogy I can currently think of to help explain my stance would be suppose there is a disabled person living within a society whereby the infrastructure is only set up to allow able bodied people to navigate freely through the disabled person will have their choices limited by the infrastructure available and therefore their agency is also limited (their choices are dependent on the infrastructure, how much assistance they can receive etc)
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-19-2016, 01:24 PM
Prodigalson's Avatar
Prodigalson (Offline)
Homer's Odyssey Was Nothing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Humboldt Co., CA
Posts: 2,009
Thanks: 205
Thanks 357
Default

...or a person doing life in prison can exercise his agency all he wants (he can choose to be free), without being able to carry through with that choice.

Agency is just choice.
__________________
Mr. Ed said I should use his signature, since he's not anymore. In honor of his good friend Nok, here it is: "As far as smoking a cigar," she said, "I'd not know where to start or how to start." "It's simple," said I, "You light one end and chew on the other and hope to meet in the middle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-12-2016, 09:06 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Quick Question - How many US Citizens think they have a constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-23-2017, 08:27 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
If you believe in a God, or the Christian God/Trinity as I do, then there are natural rights. And more natural duties than rights.

If you don't believe in God or any god or gods then you probably have to take the view that rights are granted from whatever hierarchy you live under. To some extent.
The inferior man argues about his rights, while the superior man imposes duties upon himself - Wagner Clemente Soto
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zombies Rights? PRPerson Writers' Cafe 6 07-31-2011 09:41 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:34 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.