***Official SSSH LC/NC Thread for January***

[DrElo]

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

I would say that everyone has the same sexual rights, which is basically to have sex with whomever they want (or themselves), assuming mutual consent. The pedophile problem comes from the idea that children are incapable of giving consent, because they haven't developed sufficiently (similar arguments could apply to retarded people). Whether or not 18 is a reasonable age of consent, it's hard to say that an infant is equipped to give consent. So there's a cutoff somewhere. And in a legal sense, there's not much of a solution beyond the arbitrary How Many Years Have You Been On This Planet one.

The idea of "rights" doesn't mean anything according to your own definition, because different individuals/groups can have diametrically opposite "legal, social, and ethical principals of freedom or entitlement".

But saying "OMG rightz!" will always work as a rhetorical devise because people are slaves to the idea of rights = sacred.

[GiantBuddha]

No, it means something very specific. It means people are entitled to x and no one else has the right to keep that from them. Different groups will argue about what rights people should have, but most of the are wrong.

I'm basically saying that people are entitled to compete in a fair game of poker, if they so choose. I guess you're saying that people are entitled to nothing, and the strong get what they want, or something like that. The latter is the law of nature, and the former is the basis of civilization.

[DrElo]

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

...

I have already countered your pedo-counterpoint in the above post.

I'm asking you about pedos who don't diddle kids. I already foresaw your original objection.

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

Weed smokers at least have the right not to be prosecuted...

Why? Because you decree it to be thus? What about (x religious fundie) who holds a diametrically opposite view on this? Is x fundie's view not a " ... social, or ethical principle of ... entitlement?"

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

Simple question: do you think it's okay for the government of an allegedly free country to prohibit its citizens from playing online poker? If so, why? And if not, why not?

I think it sucks. Does that mean I think it's not "okay"? I don't know, what does "okay" mean? They certain have the means to prohibit their citizens from playing.

[pig4bill]

Originally Posted by sledghammer

I hate having to deal with this situation:

Ha, a friend of mine took over a job from a guy that was a in certain foreign ethnic group. The department did a lot of business with outside vendors. Turns out all the vendors did substandard work and overcharged, and also all happened to be owned by people in a certain foreign ethnic group. All those vendors were replaced within a week.

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by DrElo

I think it sucks. Does that mean I think it's not "okay"? I don't know, what does "okay" mean? They certain have the means to prohibit their citizens from playing.

say from tomorrow any policemen, gvmt official, whoever, can just freely walk into your appartment any time, and take a crap on the carpet if he wants. He can also choose to **** you in the ass if he feels like it. They would certainly have the means to pull this off. So would this count as "sucks" or "not ok"?

[Wolfram]

Originally Posted by DrElo

The idea of "rights" doesn't mean anything according to your own definition, because different individuals/groups can have diametrically opposite "legal, social, and ethical principals of freedom or entitlement".

You keep saying that it "doesn't mean anything" but that's just not true.

A "right" is a legal contract made by society. It is not however a universal truth.

So yes, it doesn't really make sense for a poker player to say "I have the right to play poker in my own home" when it's banned by the govmnt. However, it makes perfect sense for him to say "I should have the right to play poker in my own home".

Just think of Habeas Corpus. Before it govmnts had unlimited power to seize and detain you for any amount of time and any reason. Then someone goes "Hey! I should have the right to control my own body unless there's some compelling reason for the state to lock me up".

[DrElo]

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

Different groups will argue about what rights people should have, but most of the are wrong.

lol k

I guess rights are "legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. Unless I disagree".

Guess this means that everyone has their own view on what rights are and what specific rights certain individuals/groups have. So you probably shouldn't write an article giving forth "POKER PLAYER'S RIGHTS", as if they are a priori or something. I request you change your article title to "Poker Player's Rights According to Me and Nobody Else".

Helllloooooo subjectivity!

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

I guess you're saying that people are entitled to nothing, and the strong get what they want, or something like that. The latter is the law of nature, and the former is the basis of civilization.

That's pretty much true. I see no logical justification for innate entitlements. Who decrees these entitlements onto the populace? Gawd? And yeah, the strong get what they want, obv. If you disagree, I'd recommend trying to log on to Stars from the US.

Civilization blows, ldo.

[Wolfram]

Originally Posted by DrElo

Civilization blows, ldo.

The good outweighs the bad.

Also, it's a work in progress and continually improving.

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by DrElo

Civilization blows, ldo.

that sounds pretty funny from someone who couldn't survive a week if civilization collapsed
angry smartass kid rambling on an internet forum, couldn't make it for a month without his xbox and pizza delivery, would get robbed, assraped and killed in a chaotic country in no time and he's crying how civilisation sucks
so ****ing pathetic

[DrElo]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

say from tomorrow any policemen, gvmt official, whoever, can just freely walk into your appartment any time, and take a crap on the carpet if he wants. He can also choose to **** you in the ass if he feels like it. They would certainly have the means to pull this off. So would this count as "sucks" or "not ok"?

As of today, that is illegal. If that is made legal tomorrow, then the authority figure could do any of that with no recourse. Such is life.

Originally Posted by Wolfram

You keep saying that it "doesn't mean anything" but that's just not true.

A "right" is a legal contract made by society. It is not however a universal truth.

So yes, it doesn't really make sense for a poker player to say "I have the right to play poker in my own home" when it's banned by the govmnt. However, it makes perfect sense for him to say "I think I should have the right to play poker in my own home".

Just think of Habeas Corpus. Before it govmnts had unlimited power to seize and detain you for any amount of time and any reason. Then someone goes "Hey! I should have the right to control my own body unless there's some compelling reason for the state to lock me up".

This "social contract" idea is a total crock. Contracts must be signed/agreed upon by consenting parties. I never consented to be involved in any part of any social contract. At best, it's a gross misuse of language.

Habeas Corpus doesn't necessarily rely on some notion of rights. It can just as easily be supported by groups of individuals and/or benevolent authority figures being like, "Hey, it sucks that the gov't can lock people up indefinitely for whatever reason they want. Let's write a law forbidding that practice". EZ game.

[GiantBuddha]

Originally Posted by DrElo

I'm asking you about pedos who don't diddle kids. I already foresaw your original objection.

I mean, they have the same rights as anyone. They can diddle themselves all day long. I actually think it's silly that possession of child pornography is illegal. I do think the photographing of it should be outlawed, though.

Why? Because you decree it to be thus? What about (x religious fundie) who holds a diametrically opposite view on this? Is x fundie's view not a " ... social, or ethical principle of ... entitlement?"

Yes, because I decree it. They're entitled to their views. I just think they're wrong. I can defend my view of rights with logic. They can't.

I think it sucks. Does that mean I think it's not "okay"? I don't know, what does "okay" mean? They certain have the means to prohibit their citizens from playing.

Yes, they have the means. That's the only reason we're even talking about it. If you think it's fine for a government to do whatever it wants, then I just disagree and don't have much more to say about it. I believe there should be bounds to a government's power.

If you want to take my bill of rights and say it's just what poker players want, that's perfectly fine. It's what I want for poker. And I think spouting off about it actually makes it a little more likely to happen. You have to fight for your right to Party (or leave the country).

[DrElo]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

that sounds pretty funny from someone who couldn't survive a week if civilization collapsed

False. If I felt as if civilization was on the verge of collapse, I'd stockpile everything I needed and would be cool. Sick assertion bro.

[daiquiri]

orly? and what gave you the possibility to stockpile all those stuff? civilisation maybe? the fair comparsion would be to drop you in the middle of Zimbabwe with your bare hands only and then survive there without civilisation smartass

[GiantBuddha]

I thought it was pretty clear that this is my opinion on what our rights are or should be. I never said this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...."

[DrElo]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

that sounds pretty funny from someone who couldn't survive a week if civilization collapsed
angry smartass kid rambling on an internet forum, couldn't make it for a month without his xbox and pizza delivery, would get robbed, assraped and killed in a chaotic country in no time and he's crying how civilisation sucks
so ****ing pathetic

lolz nice edit

u mad?

Listen, I'm deeply sorry you are unable to refute my posts. Some people are more intelligent than others and can form coherent arguments. This might offend those who believe that all people are equal.

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

Yes, they have the means. That's the only reason we're even talking about it. If you think it's fine for a government to do whatever it wants, then I just disagree and don't have much more to say about it. I believe there should be bounds to a government's power.

If you want to take my bill of rights and say it's just what poker players want, that's perfectly fine. It's what I want for poker. And I think spouting off about it actually makes it a little more likely to happen. You have to fight for your right to Party (or leave the country).

Meh, ok. It's yet to be shown that rights are actually some objective thing that can be analyzed, and I doubt it's coming. I'm mainly just hoping that you can be more accurate with your language.