I’ve got to agree with Jodi here, the law might be stupid and backwards, but it does not violate any rights. There are lots of laws out there that I and others think fall into such a category, for instance drinking laws, I can be drafted but I can’t down a draft.
As far as I’m concerned it’s stupid, but I don’t have a right to down a brew, let alone doing so while looking at nekkid people.
Dravin, by using Jodis definition, you aren’t even allowed to complain about bad laws. Or at least if you do you have to put up with hateful fucking pieces of shit like her whining “that’s not a right” when you say it should be, “that’s not a right” when you mention that morally you have a right to do anything that doesn’t harm others, “that’s not a right”.
How did we ever achieve any legal recognition of human rights? By ignoring people like Jodi.
Actually, I made a thread in GD on the subject of rights, arguing that no one really has any rights at all, we’re just able to do things that other people don’t stop us from doing. Check here if you want to get involved in it:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=137859
Anyway, I think you’re misunderstanding what Jodi is trying to say. Even if you assume there are certain fundimental rights, it’s generally not expected that they cover every aspect of human behavior. For example, I get coffee every morning on my way into work. If Washington DC passed a law banning coffee within the city limits, it would be a bad law, and a stupid law, and I’d hate the law very much. However, that law wouldn’t violate any of my fundimental rights. You can say a law is bad without saying you have a right to do what the law prohibits, and you can say you should be allowed to do something without having a right to do it. However, if a law infringes on a right, there’s a higher standard of scrutiny in the review of that law.
In this case, the law banning liquor in strip clubs probably is a bad law. I can understand, at least, why you might think so. You don’t, however, have a right to drink liquor in strip clubs. What you do have, however, and which you should probably exercise, is the right to organize people who think like you do to change the law.
But what Jodi is saying is that “rights” are defined exclusively by the law. She is arguing against someone saying a right should be recognised by saying iy isn’t recognised- this is circular logic, and results in new rights never being considered. If everyone thought like Jodi no basic human rights ever would have been recognised.
What I resent is the mean spirited tone with which Jodi has attacked Lady over what is a minor semantic quibble. Jodi is wrong in regards to the actual subject of the thread, and has been wrong many times about the particulars, yet she refuses to acknowledge her errors and continues to attack a newbie on extremely tenuous semantic grounds.
The simple fact that I have a visceral reaction to seeing the “popular kids” hound a newbie for no good reason has resulted in unwarranted personal attacks against myself, which just confirms my suspicion that certain “popular” posters are assholes.
Actually no, complaining about those bad laws is part of the ‘change it option’.
Should be, implies it isn’t, so she is technically correct. Her argument is that you are claiming it is a right, not that it shouldn’t be, at least that’s what I’ve gathered from her numerous posts. All she says is it isn’t a right, which is the truth like it or not, say, “Yeah, your right I was getting a bit sloppy with word usuage.” Then move on and keep complaining about the law because you don’t like it, not because it violates a right that does not exsist.
If that’s the case then it is the right of the politicians and their supporters to not allow you to drink booze and watch nekkid people, they aren’t harming you, at least not from the definition you seem to be using. See, your right also lets me smoke marijuana and do a number of other outlawed drugs (assuming tis home grown). If somebody had claimed they have a right to smoke weed and Jodi had responded that such isn’t a right would you be defending the position with such fervor?
No, by demanding the rights you claim are due to you and explaining why such is a right that should be afforded you, so far I’ve not seen a convincing argument why the right to look at nekkid people and drink should be afforded to you, and a right that isn’t afforded you by those in charge isn’t a right, it is a dream, a hope, a goal or what have you, but it sure isn’t a right, you have to be able to exercise a right for it to exsist in all but pipe dreams.
Anyway, go and fight for the right you deem denied you, but until it is afforded it doesn’t exist and explaining that it isn’t a right is 100% correct. And that is all Jodi has done my friend, stated fact, don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like the news, the right to do as you wish as long as it doesn’t harm others does not exist in the United States and many other countries, if not all.
Nope, Jodi never said you shouldn’t make such a right, she just said it wasn’t one; there is a rather noticeable difference between the two. A slave in 1820 could not claim that he has the right to freedom and walk off the plantation, because he in fact does not have that right, that didn’t come around until after the civil war. But the fact that he wouldn’t have that right doesn’t mean he shouldn’t, and that he shouldn’t seek to get such a right afforded him, but until such time he does not have that right, no matter how just and fair it would be for him to have it, and thus him claiming he has it if factually wrong.
No, I see to people sticking to their stances. Somebody used the word right incorrectly as it often is and it’s been pointed out, a simple, “Yeah, okay it’s not a right, but the law is stupid.” Or something like that would have stopped that little track of discussion, but that didn’t happen, so we have somebody maintiny they have something that they don’t, and somebody claiming that they in fact are not afforded that right and claiming they are is false.
P.S. I read the thread last night, so some of it may have slipped my mind, if I got some of the particulars wrong please correct me and I shall conceed the point.
Dravin
Jodi has refused to acknowledge that Lady is talking about a one time event (Jodi insists on repeating arguments, like “property value” and “it will draw crime” that rely on the assumption that this is a permanent establishment). Jodi has refused to acknowledge that Lady is talking about male strippers who are not going fully nude (Jodi has never taken back her statement that it would “degrade women”, which is questionable even if it were female strippers but is totally inaplicable when talking about male strippers; she belittles Ladys complaint by using phrases like “tits’n’drink” that only make Jodi look like an idiot who can’t follow the discussion…)
As far as convincing reasons for a right to drink and watch strippers, how about some convincing reasons for it to be illegal? Why should a bored housewife going to a Chippendales show be considered a criminal? Who is being harmed by her actions?
Reasons for discouraging the establishment of strip clubs have been given, you may or may not agree with them, but they have been given. And anyway, such a right doesn’t exist and pointing out that it is so is being factual, your personal opinions aside as to wither it should be. As with the chocolate and money examples, just because you claim it a right doesn’t make it so. The particulars of Lady’s situation are immaterial, as she claims a right to drink and watch nekkid people, rights would apply outside of her and thus mean strip clubs that serve booze are legal, because making them illegal is a violation of the proclaimed right.
Don’t you see the connection? The right would apply to everybody and thus allow the build up that is the stated reasons for law’s exsistance.
Because it’s illegal? That wasn’t a very hard question as it was given. Anyway, as I understand it going to the show isn’t illegal, going to a show that also serves alcoholic beverages is illegal, there is a rather notable difference. Also, wouldn’t it be the club that broke the law, not the patrons? Either way it is immaterial to the central question.
As has been stated property owners, either way this is irrelevant to the central question as to making such illegal is a violation of rights. And in my earlier example, if I grow my own pot in my basement and smoke it this is illegal, even though I may not see how it is harming anyone, or why it should be illegal it is, and it being illegal is not a violation of my rights as there is no right to smoke marijuana.
The discussion here is not weather the law is fair and just, but wither it violates anybody’s rights, which it doesn’t as no right to drink and look at nekkid people does not exist. You keep on trying to have people justify the law, which they don’t need to do. The law being stupid, unfair or unjust is not connected to the question of wither the proclaimed right to drink while looking at nekkid people is a right.
That should teach me to pay more attention. She wouldn’t be hurting property owners personally, but the allowance of the type of behavior would allow the creation of a business that the local government is trying to discourage.
GRENDEL –
I guess it would make me feel all warm ‘n’ fuzzy to be referred to as a “popular poster,” if I didn’t find the whole idea of “popularity” on a message board – and, indeed, anywhere outside of a junior high school – to be so much crap. And I call crap when I see it.
But I continue to be amused by your bleatings about “uwarranted personal attacks” on the one hand, while referring to me as a “hateful piece of shit” on the other. It’s clear you see no contradiction there, which does not surprise me; having found you construe my position as “rights are defined exclusively by law” – which I obviously never said, and do not believe – it’s clear there’s a lot of things you just don’t get.
“Quit being so mean to people, you piece of shit! You asshole!” – Heh. 
Come to think of it, that behavior is rather “junior high”, too . . . . Say, since you haven’t been able to change my mind, or keep your temper, maybe we should just meet in the parking lot after seventh period and you can try to beat me up.
DRAVIN, thanks for you kind defense; you are of course exactly correct. But don’t waste too much breath on it.
Jodi, I’ve been an ass in this thread.
That doesn’t forgive your behavior that I’ve already commented on, but I don’t really give a shit any more. I don’t have a horse in this race, it just disturbs me to see a newbie treated so poorly for so little reason.
I still maintain that laws against non-harmful activities are wrong. In particular, sodomy laws are just incredibly wrong and mean spirited, and they do infringe my “rights”. Anyone who questions my use of the word “rights” is being needlessly pedantic in order to avoid dealing with the big picture, and probably in order to hide their true motivation for arguing with me in the first place.
In the case of the OP, I have to wonder why so much energy has been expended in an effort to hijack this thread.
So we can conclude that you believe that humans or individuals have no inherent or fundamental rights?
I appreciate you sticking up for this “newbie.” It leads me to believe that you may be compassionate in general, which I think is a wonderful quality to possess. But Jodi’s insults and derogatory remarks do not bother me in the least. In fact, I laughed when I read her latest . . .
GRENDEL –
First, I never asked you to critique my behavior and I certainly never asked you to “forgive” it. Since you have been far more “mean-spirited” in this thread than I have, I can’t really take your opinions about me or my posting style too seriously. But maybe your conduct is okay while mine is not because I’m ever so “popular” and not a “newbie”? Second, to say that “laws against non-harmful activities are wrong” merely begs the question of what is or is not a “non-harmful” activity." (And an issue about whether a law is justifiable or not, or “wrong” or not, is not necessarily based on violation of “rights;” some laws are just stupid or bad, all on their own.) Third, no one but you is talking about sodomy laws. It’s pretty difficult to see how consensual private activity in your own home, that has no impact outside your home (and here I’m distinguishing between having sex and, say, cooking up drugs for sale), could ever be harmful. Fourth, if you base your argument on the existence of a right you do not in fact have, then a person pointing out that you do not, in fact, have that right and that your argument is therefore a very weak one, is not “hijacking” the thread – is not being “pendantic” – is not acting out of any motivation other than pointing out the inherent weakness in your argument. I realize it’s easier to dismiss my point if you insist on construing it as a matter of semantics or pendantry, but it is not. I realize it’s easier to personalize this if you go beyond what I say to assign me some “motivation” beyond challenging the argument, but at that point you’re just making stuff up in your own head.
LADY –
As a matter of philosophy, or practicality? Philosophically, I have no problem with the concept of “rights,” nor with using “inherency” as a justification for the extension of rights in a given society. That does not change the fact that in the real world, as opposed to the conceptual, a person in society has only such rights as that society agrees he or she will have, and no others. Everything else is stuff you’re just making up – a mere concept, a thought in your head that does not reflect reality. As I have already said: If you live in a society that does not grant you a right to free speech, do you still have that “right”? How can you tell? How do you know you have that right in the first place – just because you say so? Franklin Roosevelt claimed that every person had a right to be free from fear, and a right to be free from want – concepts a tad more admirable than the right to ogle strippers while knocking back shots – but his saying it didn’t make it so. In reality, you don’t have those rights, either, because our society has not agreed to extend them to you. And since you claimed a specific right not as a philosophical matter but rather to contest an actual, existing right, and to justify your desire to engage in specific behavior, it seemed a safe bet to me to assume we were talking about actual rights, not merely conceptual, philosophical ones. And, in reality, the right you claim is not a right you actually have.
And tell me to fuck off again and I’m outta here.
Well, at least we manage to amuse each other then, LADY, though at least my “derogatory comments,” if so they be, are a little more original that yours. :rolleyes:
Thanks for the link. I’ll certainly check it out . . .
You wrote, “Anyway, I think you’re misunderstanding what Jodi is trying to say.”
Jodi is trying to say that I don’t have a legal right. I agree that I don’t have a legal right. If I had the legal right to drink and watch naked or half naked people dance in public, I would not be complaining. It also seems she is now saying that a right does not exist unless it is defined as a right by law. I am not sure what she really thinks since she ignores the points that I make, and only acknowledges any statement that helps her in her argument.
So you don’t think you have a human right to drink coffee if you want to?
I asked you a simple question that you danced around. I will rephrase it a bit and ask you again . . . Do you believe that humans or individuals have no inherent or fundamental rights? I am asking for a simple answer, yes or no. Feel free to explain your answer but please answer the question.
You wrote, “And since you claimed a specific right not as a philosophical matter but rather to contest an actual, existing right, and to justify your desire to engage in specific behavior, it seemed a safe bet to me to assume we were talking about actual rights, not merely conceptual, philosophical ones.”
I claimed a specfic right and declared it a human right. And you have been claiming I don’t have a right. Which right is that? A human right? An individual right? A fundamental right? A legal right?
Let me ask you another question Jodi, does the right to pursuit of happiness exist? Again, please answer yes or no.
I didn’t know we were in a contest to see who could come up with the most original insults. And you asscused grendel of juvenille behavior? LOL!
Jodi: My Insults are better than yours, nana nana boo boo!!!
ALLNO: Fuck off . . . (waves Jodi away like she would the average knat)
I’ll save my originality for my poetry, lyrics and other creative writing ventures . . .
No, I don’t. I think I should be allowed to drink coffee if I want to, and I don’t think the government should interfere with my coffee drinking, but I don’t have a right to drink coffee. My drinking coffee is a privilege conditional upon, among other things, the availabilty of coffee and my means to purchase said coffee.
I agree with you that you probably should be able to drink at a strip club. I’m just not comfortable calling that a “right”. See. rights don’t exist independent of a legal framework. A right determines an area that the government is not allowed to interfere in, or, at least, requires a higher standard of scruitiny to interfere in. This doesn’t meat that standard, IMHO, and I get bothered in general when people try to defend an action by saying “I have a right to do it” when no such right is commonly established. There seems to be a general feeling among a lot of people that “rights” are the only argument against government action.
So then, you feel that you as a human have no inherent rights because you are? You might as well be a robot then . . .
Laws deny rights, enforce rights based on the lawmakers percepetion of right and wrong. The existence of laws does not take away human rights for instance, they merely limit the freedom of humans to exercise them. So to say that in reality that certain rights do not exist, especially if those rights fall under the catergory of human rights, it is to say that humans have no inherent rights which is an untrue statement and one in which most people would disagree.
You wrote, “rights don’t exist independent of a legal framework.”
Really? I guess before legal frameworks existed, we just called human or individual rights something else. But that is interesting indeed, rights came into existence the moment that we had a legal framework.
How is that untrue? It’s a matter of opinion; can you prove that humans have rights? No, the only thing the supports that humans have rights is that a bunch of people say we do, that doesn’t make it fact, it makes it popular opinion, two entirely different things. 1000 years ago nobody went on about the right to speak freely, and 1000 years from now they may stop the fuss, or start fussing about an entirely new subject, rights are rather transient things, popping up and disappearing as time goes by.