Predictable response

You didn't answer the question.

In message , dated Sat,

Can you perhaps deduce from my answer that I was not exactly overjoyed by the event?

I believe you are wrong about this. Your argument below is completely bogus and I can easily imagine that others will come up with better ones. I do not wish that my pointing out how wrong this argument is be considered as any sort of limit to my disagreement with the statement.

The mere statement of the existance of a right does not make it exist. People talk of unicorns all the time.

No such right could exist. Human rights do not conflict.

In message , dated Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Ken Smith writes

I'm sure you know what you mean by that last sentence. But what 'rights' in an absolute sense, outside of a specific social order, do you think humans have?

And how does one objectively test for their presence? Or is it just a matter of opinion?

The argument below that point was claiming a silly absolute right as a straw man argument. Someone else could come up with a much better argument for there being no absolute rights. I did not want people to think that my disagreement with the argument was merely a disagreement about the specific strawman rather than the claim that there are no absolute rights.

There is a lot of disagreement about this but in the US many believe that the rights of "life, liberty and etc" are absolute rights. Even though those were said to be endowed by the "creator", which many would argue makes them not absolute at all.

Whatever arguments there may be about what rights there are, I believe that the term "human rights" can only apply to such absolute rights. During the time that there was slavery in the US black people were being denied the use of rights that they had. They did not gain the rights only when slavery was ended.

I will take the case of "life" to expand on: Trying to state in a simple phrase what that right is, isn't as easy as it sounds. The right to life does not mean that if a person is trying to shoot themselves, I should to place my body in the path of the bullet to protect them. It also does not prevent a killing in self defence. In both those cases, the other person has created the situation where someone dies. I've only have the power to change who.

There are opinions about whether there are such things as rights and opinions about what rights there may be. We may be in the same sort of situation scientists found themselves in many years back. They thought it likely that there were atoms. They had theories of the universe that included their existance. However, they could not detect an atom nor tell what it was made of. Most people would agree that during that time atoms did really exist, they didn't appear when the first measurement that proved their existance was done.

So the existence of the Right to bear arms is something you expect to be able to verify sometime?

Do you mean me personally or do you mean I can reference someone elses proof. For the existance of electrons and atoms and the like, we all assume the other guy got it right because his argument was convincing.

BTW: I don't really expect the "right to bear arms" to be proven to be an absolute right.

I would. Except that the Democrats are coming back into power. Time to load up on arms and ammo ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Only a cretin like you could come up with that kind of s*it.

Graham

I'd rather give Janet Jackson the right to bare breasts.

Strangely enough, the sight of bare boobies caused a ruckus in the USA, whilst dead bodies in the street bother no American at all it seems.

Peculiar priorities for sure ! Save our kids ( and adults too ? ) from bare flesh but let's encourage pointless killing !

Graham

In article , Jim Thompson wrote: [...]

Have no fear. The vast majority of the voters may want the Democrats to win but the president of Diebold is still a Republican. He has promiced to ensure the *right* outcome.

In article , Eeyore wrote: [.. Ms Jackson's wardrobe malfunction..]

It wasn't "boobies" it was one booby flashed.

You can show lots of bloody violence on network TV but not a bare breast. Humans are strange creatures!

I guess we Arizonans are way ahead of the times. Back to paper ballots. Even the handicap touch screens produce paper hard-copies that can be visually examined before turning in.

...Jim Thompson

One rather unappealing booby, equipped with a bizarre metallic lampshade-looking ornament at that. *I* object to being exposed to that!

US TV has managed to mess up science, sports, history, and news. Better they should leave sex alone.

John

Using electronics at voting places in insane. It'll break or be obsolete/unrepairable in a few years, and costs a fortune. Simple paper ballots and OCR makes a lot more sense.

John

Yep, that's where we are. I haven't been to the polls in years. I do the mail-in ballot thing, where they use OCR to count and electronic signature verification to validate... at the polls only the little old lady looks at your signature ;-)

...Jim Thompson