Argh property rights debate

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, now that you have expressed your exasperation with my failure to agree with your baseless assertions, I am in complete agreement with you.

Well done, sir.

I'll end my participation in this futile discussion with a piece of advice for you: If you can't make a convincing argument for your case, you ought not to assume that your case is rock solid but your audience is too stupid to understand. You are exhibiting the same hubris you are quick to accuse the ACists of exhibiting.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, now that you have expressed your exasperation with my failure to agree with your baseless assertions, I am in complete agreement with you.

Well done, sir.

I'll end my participation in this futile discussion with a piece of advice for you: If you can't make a convincing argument for your case, you ought not to assume that your case is rock solid but your audience is too stupid to understand. You are exhibiting the same hubris you are quick to accuse the ACists of exhibiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not the one making assertions here and what do I have to do to "prove" my argument that I act according to my subjective values? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights"

[/ QUOTE ]

If "bad" != "violating someone's rights" then there's a difference. Obviously to someone who doesn't believe in rights yet considers certain things bad this is the case.

Is your argument that it's impossible to consider anything bad on a subjective level without believing a right is being violated?