In my seventh post on this thread, I defined what right I was talking about. To quote myself, “Someone’s property values are more important than my individual (human) right to do with my life and my body what I choose.” It was supposed to written as a question but regardless, I stated which right I was talking about only to have you turn around and demand that I post again which right that was and to define it. The definition I gave you of right “Something due to a person by law, tradition, or nature.” is a sufficent definition as I am a human by nature and I am an human individual by nature. Therefore I have a human right, an individual right as a human that I place above the law. So again, it does not matter if I have a consitutional right, a legal right or if that right has been legally granted, it still does not change the fact that I still have a right, as an individual, as a human and because it is my right, I should have the legal right as well. That was the reason why I posted this thread to begin with, to complain about not being able to legally exercise my right.
Your review of the conversation so far is a bit off. It is more like this . . .
ME: I have this right to drink and watch naked people because it is my right as a human being to do with my body and my time as I see fit as long as it does not directly infringe upon the rights of others but Marietta does not agree so I am here to gripe about it.
YOU: You don’t have the legal right.
ME: No shit sherlock.
YOU: Which right is that again (because I obviously didn’t read all of your posts?) Explain right. Define right. You don’t have any right. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah (endlessly I might add . . . )
ME: Think Jodi, think . . .
YOU: Whatever you say or whatever definition you use, I find it unacceptable will nit pick it to death because I refuse to accept that I might be wrong about or could misunderstand anything . . .
You wrote, ““Individual right” means a right belonging to an individual. “Human right” means a right belonging to a human. Neither of those terms says anything about (a) what right you’re talking about (freedom of speech, freedom from fear, whatever) or (b) where that right comes from.”
(A) I explained in my OP what right I was talking about, I was specific at that. (B) The right comes from being human.
You wrote, “So again we’re left with “natural right,” since of the definitions you have used – at law, by tradition, natural, human, individual – that’s the only one that either applies (as “at law” and “by tradition” do not) or actually says something about the nature of the right (as “individual” and “human” do not).”
No dear, we are left at individual and or human right (I don’t see a lot of difference between the two) where I started. You merely took the definition of nature out of context. And individual and human DO say something about the nature of the right, they say a lot about the nature of the right with the use of the words individual and human. Those words define it and explain it quite well by themselves . .
Jodi, I don’t need you to make an argument for me. I’ve made my own several times and even simplified it for Dewey above when I wrote" If it does not directly infringe upon anothers rights, I should have the right because I am human. "
You wrote, “In any event, any talk about nebulous unenumerated “natural rights” is largely hot air, though perhaps philosophically interesting. You may claim a “right” to do anything you want so long as no one else is damaged, but that is not a right society grants, either through law or tradition.”
Fuck society, law, and tradition. How is that for hot air?
You wrote “In reality the rights you claim are merely hypothetical, and if and when you try to exercise them in reality, you will find that you don’t have them.”
I in reality do have the right, even if in reality the law says that I don’t. And I do exercise my rights, I do what I want for the most part. It is illegal to have sex unless you are married in the state of Georgia. I am not married and I have a lover who I have sex with. In fact, we break that sodomy law too. I also smoke pot, which is illegal. So much for the law. And if I am caught, I usually get off or a slap on the wrist. When I get pulled over for speeding, another law I regularly break, 9 times out of 10 the officer will let me go without a warning . . .
You wrote, “So to say that other rights “still exist [depending]on personal opinion and perception” is IMO both misleading and worthless.”
And that is just your “worthless” opinion . . .
You wrote, “If you lived in a society that did not grant you a right to free speech, would you still have one?”
Yes I would. Like I said in an earlier post, just because a right has not been granted does not erase it’s existence.
You wrote, “Do you think you would have one just because you say so?” Well we all have to start somewhere . . . so the answer to your question is yes.
You wrote to Grendel, “I merely said that any argument that she has some “right” to drink and watch naked people dance in a public place is specious, because she has no such right.”
You might want to rephrase that to “she has no such LEGAL right.”
You also wrote, “Bullshit. I have “denied” no definition at all, nor have I insisted on any definition at all.”
LOL! You insisted that I first verify my right and then that I define it. When I asked you think out of the little legal box you box everthing in, you got sarcastic. You even posted to me above “after much prodding.” (of a definition or explaination.) Futhermore, you refuse to accept any definition I have given and accused me of not explaining myself, like the fact that I am pissed because I think I have a human right to do something that the law denies needs any kind of explaination. What will I read next, that I don’t have the right to be pissed about anything unless you agree that is meaningful and worthwhile?
FUCK YOU! And fuck off . . .
