Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Ghet for Prez, Oct 16, 2007.
You'r just not getting it McGirth.
Nobody is. Ghet is just that intelligent.
The irony is astounding.
What did you do earlier in this thread when I asked you how many people would be walking the earth today if there hadn't been abortions all over the world during the last 50 - 100 years?
The irony is that the same hypocrites who contradict themselves every time they are cornered will point out my intentional contradictions (which do not constitute hypocrisy because I never said that I stand for any side and promote any cause).
You're fulla shit, Ghet.
All the rhetoric and elaborate language won't change that.
yup ur dismissed
Why is this emotional heathen still addressing me?
Shouldn't you be dancing in circles around a tree, claiming that ambiguity is a rite of passage?
okay, thanks for clarifying your not presuming anyone doing the actual ruling following specific ends. But of course, this admission basically kills your idea that tyrannies, dictatorships and democracies treat rights the same when we combine it with your earlier admission that property is not a "right" because its contracted into by citizens with power. Here i content that property rights and other rights are often the both 'rights'.
You've now implicitly made the distinction i was trying to tease out of you: tyrannies can/are governed by the whims of a tyrant seeking power for power; democracies contain many all seeking/having power, generally through property right (and other rights as well, whatever they demand) - with a prevailing legal system/ideology/whatever connecting them altogether. These are fundamental different in their implications for freedom/the granting of rights.
When the tyrant grants rights, indeed it can be to stay in power. to stop an overthrow (or it can be solely on a whim!).
When a democracy grants rights, who is acting here? by your logic, its either the ruling group (i.e. property or existing rights holders) OR the prevailing ideology. The ruling group, the one that grants the property rights, is the same group that grants other rights (free speech, etc)
IF its the ruling group (i.e. the property owners) then they are the one's seeking power largely FROM THEMSELVES. I.E. as a ruling majority they are choosing to grant themselves rights. (this can also be by their whims. and yes of course they can be misguided). I.E. Rights to things like free speech, just like property rights, result from the same thing. (and of course, just like a property right can be used for the weak to dominate the strong; so can free speech, etc) If its the ideology, for example, in the case of a legal doctrine unfolding overtime, then we don't really know what the ends of the ideology are. Whether to stay in power, transform society, or otherwise. (this is a different question better suited for a different topic)
Your right in a way that "the system trying to maintain itself" in that it is REACTING TO ITS OWN CITIZENS interests. i.e. the ruling element in society grants these rights to themselves/other citizens. Here its women, who by getting full legal rights gained considerable property clout within one generation in large part due to succession, ask for some form of right to abortion hinging themselves on other rights. In the same way that a property right reflects power relations - so to do other rights. Including women choosing to abort; it stems from their power.
this is fundamentally different then say, china, forcing everyone to have 1 child max. Here, china is (or was anyway) decides for everyone what is right. In the example of democracy, its more the result of women gaining more power over time and its consequences. In china, its made as a result of the government deciding its best it to maintain its power to limit births (or some other reason).
also, your view on land development is flat-out incorrect. Even Locke admits as much. Surely you don't accuse the father of the modern democracy/property system of being a "marxist" do you?
oh and to bring it all back to the original disagreement:
My proposal for how Gays could theoretically justify 'rights' to protect the interests of their group, against women aborting - if it was found that being gay was wholly genetic - was an example of one way gays could argue to have their groups right protected that fits within the existing legal framewokr. The point: the dilemma your anti-gay eugenics posed can be remedied within the framework of rights discourse & it could be done supposing those who are compact in power in our society allow for it (or conversely, if the ruling ideology does), which i'm quite sure they would have no problem doing.
i.e. this gay eugenics thing isn't the doomsday issue for democracies.
Yahunyoti: land has a variable capacity in its ability to maintain people.
here is a thought experiment:
1-Imagine the earth was only composed a square mile of very dense amazon jungle. It could probably only maintain 30-100 people, and not well, [assuming no labour was added to it (i.e. no trees cut, no fruit trees planted, no animals herded)].
2-Imagine that same square mile, with the trees cut, the ground cleared, the soil tilled with crops growing, and wood cabins built. The same piece of land could probably maintain 100-500 people if it was managed well.
3-Imagine that same square mile, 1000 years later. scientists having made many discoveries. The square mile now has greehouses on it, Genetically modified plants to produce maximum food per square inch in minimal time, high tech plastics/metals for construction leading to being able to pack in more ppl per amount of space comfortably, etc... high rises to maximize space use, an underground powerplant to collect geothermal energy, etc. You can imagine the same piece of land could probably easily maintain 500-1000 people.
think sim city.
So you see, the degree to which land can maintain people is NOT constrained. As a result the capacity for the earth, which afterall is just a bigger peice of land, to maintain people has growtn over time. As labour/tech is infused into the land/earth, the capacity of the land for human population has grown & still has tons of room to grow.
10 square miles 10000 years ago could not maintain as many people as it does today.
now, take that same square mile of rain forest cut down the dense brush
homo's = human.
simple fact, now move on.
Separate names with a comma.