View Single Post
Old 01-15-2009, 06:50 PM   #266 (permalink)
FoolThemAll
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
Arbitrary, as in, the things you think are important aren't the same as the things other people think are important. The things you think are rights are just the things you think are rights, they aren't actually rights in the sense that they aren't behaviors allowed by people with more power than you.
In the sense that the right to life is only a right when others let you live. In the sense that all moral judgments are equally arbitrary. Sure. I'm okay with residing within that miles-wide definition of 'arbitrary'.

Quote:
If you want to distill it down, my position is that "rights" are determined by the folks with the power to give and take them, and that all this high minded talk of a person's "right" to decide specific things about his/her property doesn't amount to a whole lot more than pissing in the wind.
Why are you even slightly passionate about your own position, then? Sounds like the wind's blowing both ways in your world.

Quote:
All I have pointed out is that in the past, certain landlords have shown an inability to perform their jobs as landlords to the satisfaction of their fellow citizens, and that, in fact, they failed so miserably that the ensuing public outcry resulted in a significant reduction in the things they could do in their capacity as landlords. I neither endorsed nor denounced what happened.
The hell you didn't. Terms like 'failed' and 'inability' are pretty obviously loaded. If you wanted to pretend neutrality about the issue, "certain landlords didn't satisfy the general public with their actions" would've shrouded your obvious endorsement at least a little better. 'Failed' and 'inability' clearly carry the implication that a job was not done as it should have been done.

Quote:
I don't think that they're rights in a moral sense, if that's what you're asking.
Did you really imagine that I wasn't talking about rights in the moral sense? The legal sense is pretty clear-cut. There's not much to debate there.

Quote:
Let the complete lack of any mention by me that *mean people should have their stuff taken from them for being mean* anywhere in this thread by the counterexample then.
Well, you'd be about as likely to phrase it that way as a neutral observer using "failed miserably". But is there some other unifying principle besides 'they're being mean to prospective tenants'? What separates this case from punishing meanness in general?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360