freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 7:36pm:



Don't be an ass. Democratic rights are created in democratic jurisdictions. They do not exist outside democratic jurisdictions. Democratic rights are legal rights.

You didn't point out anything, you just repeat the same thing without offering any logical, legal, historical, ethical, philosophical or other justification for it  - except and always just the weight of your own insistance.

You confuse the notion of argumentm ad populum (appeal to popular opinion) with democratic right created and protected by law. Democracy means popular support for the laws.





freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 10:42pm:

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 9:53pm:

The vote is a democratic right, ie a right created by law, not by 'nature', like your human rights which are supposedly yours regardless the laws of your country.

I didn't realise that even brass tacks needed to be explained.


Quote:


This is just you acting stupid again. You need to give a reason or a ground for why I am wrong. Pointing it out and saying 'you are wrong' is an argument only among children.


Quote:


In the case of legal rights, yes. See above.

Quote:


Rights created in law in a democracy are rights because they have a supposed majority support, that is, more people support them than not: the age of consent, for example is what it is because the majoity want it about whr it is.
This is not the same as an argument ad populum where somebody would appeal to the popular sentiment in a pub argument. Laws in democracies are not made by popular acclaim (argumentum ad populum) but after calm and reasoned deliberations through parliaments and then they are weighed by courts when particular cases come up.




ANyway, have a read and once you have cleared your mind, return with your questions:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#1

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

Aren't you going to tell me FD ???

Does the message which is conveyed in IMAGE #2 more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???


With your words, and these two images [below], i believe that i have posed a legitimate 'conundrum'.

And i have asked you [our 'rights' man] to demonstrate your ability to make a [proper] moral choice.

Don't you have the balls to make that moral choice, by responding to my 'problem' ???

Or is the problem, really 'our' problem, and a problem without a solution ???







+++


freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm:








freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm:




FD,

Two images....

And a question.

Which of these two images more nearly represents, 'seeing things in black and white' ???

IMAGE #1 or IMAGE #2 ???



And which image more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???

IMAGE #1 or IMAGE #2 ???



Perhaps the message which is conveyed in IMAGE #2 more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???

Is that what you honestly believe FD ???















+++

FD,

You chose the words.

I simply ask you to explain to us all, HONESTLY;

In our 'confrontation' with ISLAM....

What is, 'the reality we are faced with' ???




FD,

There is never a 'solution' to a moral problem, without making a difficult moral choice.

Merely saying;

"I can ameliorate these problematic circumstances, by pandering to the protagonists who are causing the problem."

....is not a 'solution', when confronting evil men, or an evil philosophy.




We [who seek peaceful lives] are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, or intimidation, is 'overcome', by our surrender to those things!

Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.

The appeasement of evil [men], does not lead to peace.

The aggression and violence of evil men, is not overcome, by our surrender, to the designs of those evil men.

FD, don't be such a fathead. Rights do not all come from the one source, one authority, one perspective. This is not a complicated or novel idea. The earlier tracts on rights and freedoms have already recognised it.
Some come from law, some from custom, some nature, some are positive, others negative. 
Being confused about all of them is not an argument so please do not put it forward as such.

WHat are you talking about?? There are rights based on democratic principles. Other rights are based on feudal principles. Rights depend on how the human person is conceived, intellectually, in a given place and time. (That in turn depends on a lot of other things) There are no rights independently from an actual society that recognises, upholds or tramples on them. For example, in pre-1770 AUstralia, there was absolutely no right to wear a burqa. (I smacking hope you are shocked to your core. It would be a small satisfaction for me.) I go furher - cats have absolutely no rights in the society of other cats and the question of the burqa doesn't even come up. How controversial is that!!!


Jesus! Never mind brass tacks, we are back to mining copper and tin (if I am lucky).

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:32pm:







James Montgomery


Wait until you come face to face with my 'imaginary friend'.       



Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:



Work through this by next Monday. Worth 30% of your final marks:

http://arc.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=FC207D20-A5C0-CD8D-C9FA8...


Extension students may attempt a ctitical evaluation of the following article for an additional mark worth 15%

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/feudal-system.htm