Anti-Rape Condom - you go girls!!!

09/23/2005 12:16:50 PM · #51

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Because it is written in the US Constitution, does not make it "correct".

Oh quite true, I believe the Constitution is but a guide. Trying to ensure the rights that are inherent to all individuals.

You are not agreeing with me here. You appear to be suggesting that the Constitution is some kind of guide, and that it somehow protects inherent rights (I presume that you meant "insure" not "ensure").

I think that it is only a "guide" to the extent that the words are there to be interpreted. I do not think that the Constitution has any further fundamental moral or philosophical accuracy other than it being the self expression of one people's choice of method of governance. It is a guide in that it can be interpreted, but not a guide in the context of giving fundamental moral or philosophical guidance. The latter interpretation would be to elevate the Constitution to an article of faith, which would be to demean its integrity.

I have said elsewhere that the concept of fundamental or inherent or essential (whatever you want to call them) human rights is a complicated one, that philosophers for centuries have debated. By your just saying "this is a fundamental right" you are conducting a very simplistic argument (ie yes it is, no it is not).

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The expression of the right to overturn a government is something of a symbol of a free society, such as is generally found in a federal republic.

I believe that was my point....I never said the Constitution was the justification. But rather it was an understanding and a belief held by many in America.

Yup - my point is that the belief is enshrined in the constitutions of the US and other republics. But that it is a principle that can be linked to certain types of government, such as that which is effective in the US (a federal republic). Just because it is a principle that is widely held in the US does not mean that it has wider application, and does not validate itself.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
However, there are other forms of government. Just because they do not conform to your view of the "best" form of government, that does not make them any more or less valid.

Any form of government that fails to protect the basic human rights or that chooses to oppress it's people is "invalid". That's my point.
[...]
If they become oppressive of the people they are wrong. Long live the king, so long as he is ruling justly, and beneficially for the people. But if he is to oppress the people...than off with his head and an end to his dynasty.

Yes - you have just expressed the opposite view to my point. My point is that there are other forms of government that do not embody the principle that you have espoused. If your argument is correct, half of the world is governed by "invalid" governments. I do not know what that means?? Please explain what happens to governments if the US decides that they are constituted in such a fashion as to make them invalid?

Please let me know how you came to the conclusion that the key factors are oppression of people or protection of basic human rights (and what are those basic human rights?). To what degree of oppression does this apply? If this is a fundamental principle that you are setting out, please let me know how you resolve the dilemma of the US enshrining the principle into its fabric, yet for years it oppressed many elements of society (eg racial divide & slavery).

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Needless to say, nothing that is written down in a constitution will affect whether or not this really is a fundamental human right.

Absolutely agreed, you're barking up the wrong tree and showing exactly my point that you just don't get it. I don't know if it is cause you come from a British background or if it's just you. But you're showing very clearly my point that you have little understanding or means to understand what Americans take as an inherent de facto understanding.

I understand that you think that there are such things as inherent rights. That you say that Americans are born with the understanding that there are inherent rights. I am asking you what is a right, and how is it inherent? Is it an inherent right just because it says so in the Constitution?

I am asking you to think for yourself, rather than to regurgitate that which you have been told and which you choose to unthinkingly believe. I am asking you to consider the possibility that the "American way" is not the only way in the world.

In any case, I will add this to my collection:

Originally posted by theSaj:

Perhaps this is a difficult concept for a Brit to understand.

Originally posted by theSaj:

...just an Brit's inability to understand a concept most American's take for granted the understanding of.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I don't know if it is cause you come from a British background or if it's just you. But you're showing very clearly my point that you have little understanding or means to understand what Americans take as an inherent de facto understanding.

I am trying to challenge your "inherent de facto understanding" as being imprecise and inaccurate. I understand that the towering and collossal arrogance of some people is such that they genuinely believe that their philosophy is the only correct one. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are not making it easy for me.

Originally posted by theSaj:

No, simply, in mine and most American's principles. "People come first..." the government is there to serve the people not the other way around. And if the government ceases such than dissolve it and form another.

My point: under some forms of government, the people come second to the state, or the ruling body. Why is this "wrong" (any reason except "the US Constitution says different)?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I merely pointed out in my original post that there is a balance to be found, as there is the potential for this device to offend certain principles.

Perhaps, but to me the brutal rape and often bloody killing of a woman or young girl is far more offensive than any principle of "vigilantism" or "acting in one's own defense instead of letting a non-existant/non-effective government beaucracy protect you".

I have merely said there is a balance, and that will depend on a number of factors that you are conveniently ignoring.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I agree with finding short term, practical solutions, but this must be balanced against the need to implement long term strategies.

I agree, and education programs and initiatives are already underway. They're making progress (I believe there has been a 30%-50% reduction in the past 10 yrs.) But when 10 yrs equals 11,000,000 rapes. Something MORE needs to be done.

I merely said that the short term steps we take should not unduly undermine the broader effort.

You sound as if you have never been exposed to the human condition, and believe that somehow a magic wand could be used to dispense with the problem. Or that any step, no matter how extreme, should be used.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Assisting nations in developing such a system (education, literacy, reduction of corruption, system of law combined with an effective police force) is perhaps more important in the long run than equipping them with weapons to defend themselves in the short term.

Agreed, but in the meantime I am not going to refuse the right of said individuals to defend themselves until society and government is established to the point of doing it reasonably well.

I am not sure that their respective societies will give them the right to take any steps that they choose in self defence, and I am not sure whether such a thing as an inherent human right exists. Regardless, I think that people will defend themselves, and, where their actions are proportionate, the rule of law would protect them for having acted in self defence.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I have used the words "assisting nations in developing" thoughtfully: I do not consider enforcing our will upon another nation and implementing a new system of government by force as "assisting", or being acceptable.

Where as, to me, I believe there are times when such must be done. If a nation were slaughtering all the blue eyes. Or treating all women as sex slaves, than I believe in acting. Even establishing. For to me, if 1/2 the population is kept as slaves and abused than I give very little care or concern regarding imposing my views on another. I wish someone had opposed their views on America regarding slavery early on - it would have save our nation from one of our greatest shames. What we were doing deserved to be stopped. And eventually, it was imposed. And one half of the nation imposed itself on the other resulting in a very bloody war. And the ending of one of America's greatest wrong-doings.

Again - a question of degree. You have used one extreme as an example (and you have decided to use an example that is highly tangential to the argument here). The other extreme would be invading a country and deposing its government on the basis that it was "invalid", because it did not recognise a constitutional right for its people to replace the government if they chose to do so. Would that be acceptable?

Message edited by author 2005-09-23 12:34:46.

09/23/2005 01:26:13 PM · #52

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I do not think that the Constitution has any further fundamental moral or philosophical accuracy other than it being the self expression of one people's choice of method of governance.

Exactly...it is the people's expression of governance. It can likewise be done away with by the people.

I used "ensure"... as the Constitution is the expression of said people's governance. The written documented expression help's ensure our rights by documenting the agreed upon rights.

enÂ·sure Pronunciation Key (n-shr)
tr.v. enÂ·sured, enÂ·surÂ·ing, enÂ·sures

To make sure or certain; insure: Our precautions ensured our safety. See Usage Note at assure.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I have said elsewhere that the concept of fundamental or inherent or essential (whatever you want to call them) human rights is a complicated one, that philosophers for centuries have debated. By your just saying "this is a fundamental right" you are conducting a very simplistic argument (ie yes it is, no it is not).

I have the right to do whatever I please. I will also, suffer the consequences of said action, particularly in reference to the government and/or society I dwell in.

To dwell in a society, one "chooses" to adhere to the governing ideologies of said society.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Just because it is a principle that is widely held in the US does not mean that it has wider application, and does not validate itself.

This is where we disagree. You see, I believe such to be "self-evident". No king has any right to rule over me. Not unless I grant him such right. He may have the means to implement such rule by force but likewise I have the right to resist his rule by equivalent force.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

My point is that there are other forms of government that do not embody the principle that you have espoused.

People may live in a society with a monarch or dictator. They may choose to grant that leader authority over them. (Sometimes out of fear.) But I believe they have the inherent self-determined right to establish their own government and to over-throw the current government if need be.

If your argument is correct, half of the world is governed by "invalid" governments. I do not know what that means?? Please explain what happens to governments if the US decides that they are constituted in such a fashion as to make them invalid?[/quote]

It depends, Britain has a monarchy. The British have chosen and accepted such a system. However, were the monarchy to affect such rule as to oppress the British. Than I would see nothing immoral if the British were to rise up, overthrow the monarchy and establish their own rule-of-law.

Plain simple....perhaps not understandable to you. But to most...an understood concept.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Please let me know how you came to the conclusion that the key factors are oppression of people or protection of basic human rights (and what are those basic human rights?). To what degree of oppression does this apply? If this is a fundamental principle that you are setting out, please let me know how you resolve the dilemma of the US enshrining the principle into its fabric, yet for years it oppressed many elements of society (eg racial divide & slavery).

READ WHAT I WRITE AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR ANSWERS. You keep so focused on the United States. I am not addressing this as a U.S. thing but and a "human thing" perhaps that's you're problem. I already addressed the failing of this in American history. Did you not read what I wrote? Obviously not...and I already made statements to that regard.

Because, I believe no man has the right to rule over another outside of an agreed mutual governing rule of authority. Nor should a government be allowed to cause undue harm on it's people.

Lastly, you ask how do I make that decision...simply "I do". Just like all the founding fathers of America and many other democratic revolutions decided. And if you tell me otherwise, if you attempt to put a cruel and oppressive governance over me I will do everything in my power to topple it. Even kill you if I must. And afterwards, endeavor to establish a rule of law that is fair, just, and given to liberty.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Let me repeat once, our rights have nothing to do with the Constitution (except it being a document of balance and agreement from adhering parties) our rights are derived from ourselves.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I am asking you to think for yourself, rather than to regurgitate that which you have been told and which you choose to unthinkingly believe. I am asking you to consider the possibility that the "American way" is not the only way in the world.

Trust me, I think for myself. Much more than 90% of people. That has NEVER been my problem. *lol* Your stating that shows how clearly you do not comprehend what I am saying nor understand me.

I am not preaching the "American Way"...I am dealing with a concept. One, that I believe the average American has a much better grasp of than you do.

You see, I am not talking about the "American Way" but rather about freedom. Freedom as an individual, and in the reality that we must function together with one another in a society, the concept of a "free society" which does include agreed upon limits but ensures basic "liberties".

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

But in the case of a debate concerning "free society" and an "enslaved society" I will stand by that there is a right and a wrong. And I will, and not out of arrogance, stand by that an "enslaved society" is wrong.

You want me for philosophical sake to say it is not? Well, that's not going to happen.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

My point: under some forms of government, the people come second to the state, or the ruling body. Why is this "wrong" (any reason except "the US Constitution says different)?

Because, each man is his own entity. Sure, there is governance and restriction in society. The restrictions most usually involve the prevention of one free entity cause harm or loss of freedom of another entity. (ie: murder, rape, etc.)

To make a determination that a "state" or "government" has the right to determine for an individual with no recourse for the individual is to declare said individual a slave. Man is not a mule nor a beast of burden. That does not mean Man is incapable or unwilling of bearing burden but simply that it is only right when he can choose to do so or not.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I have merely said there is a balance, and that will depend on a number of factors that you are conveniently ignoring.

And just what might those be?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I merely said that the short term steps we take should not unduly undermine the broader effort.

I agree. However, I do not believe you've made a case that such does undermine the broader long term effort. Therefore, I see no relevancy in this argument on your part. It is a mere red herring...perhaps a red salmon at best.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

You sound as if you have never been exposed to the human condition, and believe that somehow a magic wand could be used to dispense with the problem. Or that any step, no matter how extreme, should be used.

No, I am merely the one who says your magic wand of "wait for education to change things" is not enough. Nor have I ever said that I advocate any step no matter how extreme.

I work on a simple principle of "origins of actions". That means the one who first enacts wrong actions bears cause of origination. That means, in this case, a rapist who is harmed has found harm in his own actions. And thus the origination of blame is upon the rapist. Now yes, there is a balance, because a penalty must not be excessive of the crime. Thus if a man spat in your face - shooting him is unacceptable. However, if you merely spit back, and the first individual complained you spit on him. There will be little cause to service his complaint when he in fact is the guilty iniator of the same.

I find it funny that you accuse me of lack of exposure to human condition and belief in a magic wand. This I'll toss right back into your face as an accusation.

*shrug*

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I am not sure that their respective societies will give them the right to take any steps that they choose in self defence, and I am not sure whether such a thing as an inherent human right exists.

Funny, your king likewise thought as you did in 1770's

On this, we fundamentally disagree, and I believe this is the root of much of your problems. You put "rule of law" above the "people". Plain and simple. Where as I say, if the law is injust and against the people then it is not valid. The people have the right to rise up against said rule and change it.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Regardless, I think that people will defend themselves, and, where their actions are proportionate, the rule of law would protect them for having acted in self defence.

If and only if the "rule of law"
a) is just
b) exists at all

So let's address actions when either of those conditions are not met.

1. When "rule of law" is unjust...do you believe a people have a right to object to said rule of law?

2. When their is no "rule of law" what then?

Lastly, I believe said device is very proportionate to said crime being perpetrated. "Rape with the possibility of death" and a preventative slightly harm inflicting restriction device. Seems quite modest. But then again, I believe that killing in self-defense is justified in a rape situation. And if a woman is being brutally raped and were to kill her perpetrator I believe she was within her rights to do so. The man suffered the consequences of his actions.

I'm fairly sure you'll have some reason why such is not right...or acceptable...or some other item of contention.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The other extreme would be invading a country and deposing its government on the basis that it was "invalid", because it did not recognise a constitutional right for its people to replace the government if they chose to do so. Would that be acceptable?

I know you've been trying to steer this to Iraq. And we disagree on too many evalutions of facts to have much ability to dialogue on that matter. Regarding justifications for entering the region.

I'll simply put it this way. I believe they have the right to determine self-rule. In fact, they are in the process of determining such right now. It's not an easy thing to do. I believe it took us 10-20 yrs to have a rudimentary basis. And about 100 yrs and a civil war to stabilize it.

But for example: Yugoslavia....massacres were happening. Life, liberty, freedom, justice were gone....at least for many. Does one act or allow a simple aspect of "strength" on the part of one group control, oppress and harm another?

Sudan...where the southern populace is constantly harmed. Not only does the Sudanese government do little to prevent said harm. But often through non-official channels does much to encourage and support it's affliction. Were we to go into that region and to undermine that government and endeavor to establish a government or governments that would reflect all the people and endeavor to protect their right to life. Then yes...I do support such.

If I saw a man raping a woman....would I support intervening on her behalf? Damn straight. Do I think there is anything wrong with stopping said man who was simple exercising his rights to choose? nope...because his right over-stepped her rights and were done with the intentions to do so.

- The Saj

09/24/2005 02:37:08 PM · #53

We are amazingly far from the initial point. To summarise:

1. I think that people should consider the long term picture before leaping to support short term solutions. That a better long term solution that is not undermined by an intervening short term solution can help more people in the long run. You think that any long term solution is not good enough, as people need help now. I donâ��t know in the case of the condoms whether they are an appropriate short term solution, or whether they will undermine longer term aims (though I can see the potential for items such as them doing so).

2. We both agree that there is a problem that needs to be resolved. You thought that by objecting to vigilantism, I was objecting to self defence (I was not).

3. I think that we agree that self defence has to be proportionate (your statements and examples conflict a bit).

4. I think that neither of us know enough about the condoms or the situations in which they are to be used to ascertain their degree of proportionality. You think that you know about everything, and that they are a proportionate response. You may be right (that is about them being proportionate, not about knowing everything): as I have said several times, my only initial issue was that the matter was more complex than you appeared to consider it.

5. You think that everyone has the right to over throw their government. You cannot justify this belief, except to say that you believe it. I have suggested a more complex interpretation of the meaning of the word â��rightâ��. I think that all people have the capability of overthrowing their government, but that this does not amount to a â��rightâ�� to do so. For example, in a dictatorship, the state is governed by a person who does not give citizens of his state â��rightsâ�� to determine their method of government: he imposes himself upon them. (you consider this invalid: â��it just isâ��, though its invalidity appears to have little meaning in reality). As for whether individuals have a more fundamental right than a constitutional one, I cannot answer. Trying to ascertain what a right is, is tremendously difficult, and trying to establish a reason why one right should be fundamental and another not, is probably impossible to do satisfactorily. I think that fundamental human rights are likely to be more basic than you suggest, and probably will change in different circumstances, including the the nature of the rights of the people surrounding you. We never get on to the interesting part of that discussion, because you keep on telling me â��it just isâ��.

6. Most recently, you have started to suggest that people choose and accept the rules of their nation. I donâ��t understand this argument: people are born into a nationality, and in parts of the world they democratically choose their leaders. At points in history the people as a whole have revolted. But individuals now do not choose what method of government they will be subject to, and people as a whole only do so in the most superficial fashion in a democracy.

7. It is clear, however, that you think that I am an idiot for trying to think about something and questioning it. You would prefer that I rely on my (or your) gut instinct and belief. You believe that your gut reaction has some additional validity because it is based upon your nationâ��s constitutional documents and that many around you believe in the same principles. Thankfully, most of us are given higher reasoning powers that permit us to rationalise and overcome our gut instincts, and some of us choose to use them.

Your reaction when confronted with the idea that large parts of the world revolve around principles that are different from those that may apply in the US was insult after insult.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I used "ensure"...

fine - your statement doesn't make sense then. Just trying to understand.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Have no idea on what grounds you are making these statements, presume just more of your gut feeling.

Originally posted by theSaj:

You see, I believe such to be "self-evident"...

Fine - cannot argue about what your gut feeling might be. It is within your field of expertise, not mine.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Dictators aren't chosen. The people "can" overthrow the government, but they have no constitutional "right", so must rely on a more inherent right. You "believe" such rights exist: no point in debating your article of faith.

Originally posted by theSaj:

It depends, Britain has a monarchy. The British have chosen and accepted such a system. ...

Plain simple....perhaps not understandable to you. But to most...an understood concept.

Nope - we have a democratically elected government (upon which yours was based - hence the similarities). I have not "chosen" the style of government. Don't understand your reasoning - mostly because it is not reasoned, but an article of belief.

Originally posted by theSaj:

READ WHAT I WRITE AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR ANSWERS.
[...]
Lastly, you ask how do I make that decision...simply "I do".

I think that this is the answer: there is no reason for your arguments. it is just your gut reaction. I had, perhaps, read too much into your earlier statements, or I would never have bothered asking more questions and trying to understand what I thought was your "reasoning".

Originally posted by theSaj:

I agree: you have a better grasp than me of your gut reaction. They are, after all, your guts.

No time to answer the rest now.

09/25/2005 10:46:46 PM · #54

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

1. I think that people should consider the long term picture before leaping to support short term solutions.

I agree, but I don't think anyone involved in this endeavor is failing to do so.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

That a better long term solution that is not undermined by an intervening short term solution can help more people in the long run.

Yeah, sure...you show me how this will undermine the efforts than I'll listen to the rest of this bologne. "It could undermine"....yeah...uh huh...sure....NOT BUYING IT.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

You think that any long term solution is not good enough, as people need help now.

No, I never said that.....enact a long term solution that also greatly remedies the short term problem as well and I'd be all for it.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I donâ��t know in the case of the condoms whether they are an appropriate short term solution, or whether they will undermine longer term aims (though I can see the potential for items such as them doing so).

Please do share...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

2. We both agree that there is a problem that needs to be resolved. You thought that by objecting to vigilantism, I was objecting to self defence (I was not).

No, I just wonder how the !@#$% you guys saw this as vigilantism to begin with? And raised such a fuss in opposition?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

3. I think that we agree that self defence has to be proportionate (your statements and examples conflict a bit).

If you're going to make such an accusation please do exemplify. For your statements conflict greatly. You claim you have no issue against self-defence but you seemed to oppose such actions as vigilantism. I feel as if you really do have an issue with self-defence but simply do not want to say such because you know that such a view would be considered ludicrous except by 100% pacifists.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

4. I think that neither of us know enough about the condoms or the situations in which they are to be used to ascertain their degree of proportionality. You think that you know about everything, and that they are a proportionate response. You may be right (that is about them being proportionate, not about knowing everything): as I have said several times, my only initial issue was that the matter was more complex than you appeared to consider it.

No, I don't claim to know everything. Nor do I believe you need too. I know enough about the situation in Africa. Yes, from quite a few individuals I met who provided first hand accounts. (Should I mention my best friend dated a S. African for a year. And from that he has become friends with a dozen or so S. Africans.

But to me, full knowledge is not required to act. A fool requires full knowledge. Such a man will starve to death due to lack of understanding. Because there is no ability for man to have full understanding. To require such for action is to doom mankind to inaction for all eternity. So, yes, I believe I understand the situation enough to support such. Second I am aware that there can be additional consequences. That is always a risk. Lastly, I accept that the people involved in it's design and implementation also have a strong knowledge of the situation. And thus I am seconded in my feelings.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

5. You think that everyone has the right to over throw their government. You cannot justify this belief, except to say that you believe it.

I can justify it from many angles:

1) The Evolutionary or Natural Argument: man is an animal, the observance is that an animal can be forced to do a task but at the same time that animal can refuse or act indifferently (yes it might suffer consequences) but so long as it is the stronger animal it achieves it's indepence. In most cases in nature an animal is free to do as it pleases. Even a pack animal can if it so deems and has the strength challenge the Alpha male for control, thus altering the government. This is the simplistic animalistic approach.

2) The Spiritual, Judeo-Christian Argument: Man was created with free will and the only one who has the authority to reprove that is the Creator. Man, will of course be judged for his actions. Government established under the authority of God is able to act in judgment according to giving statutes which protect an individual's free-will from being over-ridden by another unduly.

3) The Logistic, Philosophical Argument: Governments are established to maintain peace and order for the betterment & protection of it's citizens. If such betterment is lacking than the governed will determine a new means more able to provide those services.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

For example, in a dictatorship, the state is governed by a person who does not give citizens of his state â��rightsâ�� to determine their method of government:

As for whether individuals have a more fundamental right than a constitutional one, I cannot answer.

Actually, if there was a just and benevelont dictator who sought the well being of his people and who's people were satisfied under his rule because of it's justice and benevelonce. I see no issue, if such is not there by force and the people accept it.

Otherwise, history will show in a society of oppression, as soon as they gain the means and strength, they shall overturn their oppressors.

Why? Because each and every human is an individual....with the freedom to choose and suffer the consequences of their choices.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Trying to ascertain what a right is, is tremendously difficult, and trying to establish a reason why one right should be fundamental and another not, is probably impossible to do satisfactorily. I think that fundamental human rights are likely to be more basic than you suggest, and probably will change in different circumstances, including the the nature of the rights of the people surrounding you. We never get on to the interesting part of that discussion, because you keep on telling me â��it just isâ��.

Are the motions and enactments more complex...sure. But the fact of the matter is this. If you tried to oppress me, I would fight you. And kill you if I had too. Simply put...i, as an individual have the ability to make that choice. Now, depending on strength I might lose. But the fact is I can choose to try.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

6. Most recently, you have started to suggest that people choose and accept the rules of their nation. I donâ��t understand this argument: people are born into a nationality, and in parts of the world they democratically choose their leaders. At points in history the people as a whole have revolted. But individuals now do not choose what method of government they will be subject to, and people as a whole only do so in the most superficial fashion in a democracy.

The individual has the ability to oppose. They may not have the strength to do so. When strength is achieved to do so and the individual chooses to do so the result is an over-turning of the currently established government and the creation of a new "rule-of-law".

History has shown this to be the case repeatedly. Now you might argue that the strength to do such may not exist. And I'll agree with that but the "right" to oppose always exists. The means to do so and remain living...is not always an option.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

7. It is clear, however, that you think that I am an idiot for trying to think about something and questioning it. You would prefer that I rely on my (or your) gut instinct and belief. You believe that your gut reaction has some additional validity because it is based upon your nationâ��s constitutional documents and that many around you believe in the same principles. Thankfully, most of us are given higher reasoning powers that permit us to rationalise and overcome our gut instincts, and some of us choose to use them.

I do not believe you an idiot for trying to think about something and questioning. I do greatly question your views and believe you to lack an integral understanding of inherent individual rights...

It has nothing to do with gutts. I've never once said that I "simply believe it" in fact, I believe I've outlyed many examples. Where as you, simply put forth a "well, i just don't know if..." who is dealing with the gutt issue. Give me a logical or well thought our answer and I might give it some validity. Keep telling me that all this is about you not knowing and/or griping about me saying things I've never said and it yes...I will continue to hold your comments and points in very low esteem. Criticize deeds as being one thing instead of another and then stating you have no problem with the one but do with the other but showing no actual means of basis for you determining a difference other than your simple gutt response and I will continue to shake my head at your points.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Your reaction when confronted with the idea that large parts of the world revolve around principles that are different from those that may apply in the US was insult after insult.

No...but my point that there are certain aspects that are universal...seems to be an aspect you do not want to address. Insult after insult. Well, you accuse me of constantly basing my arguments on America and it's Constitution and I have repeated that such are not. But it's not like you're going to listen.

I find the irony that you can make such a point as the above, and yet this whole argument is about you not understanding the needs of another part of the world. So yeah....I simply laugh and shake my head about that and bite my tongue from saying any more.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Have no idea on what grounds you are making these statements, presume just more of your gut feeling.

Hmm...i wonder if you will ever make a correct presumption. *lol* Probably on occasion.

No, this is not a gutt feeling. I can buy a gun, flight to London and shoot you. Now I will bear the consequence for such a heinous action. But i have the ability to make such a choice. Likewise, I will suffer consequences according to the established "rule-of-law" as to those Consequences. However, when there is enough individuals with enough power to oppose the current "rule-of-law" and establish their own con-current "rule-of-law" said actions consequences can be radically different. Hence, Stalin's killing of opposition was unopposed. However, during the time when the Soviet Union was about to collapse and Mr. Gorbachev was under house arrest the people around rose up and established a new "rule-of-law". This lead to the cessation of the Soviet Union. And a new government in it's place.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

You see, I believe such to be "self-evident"...

Fine - cannot argue about what your gut feeling might be. It is within your field of expertise, not mine.

Self-evident does not equate to "gutt feeling" but rather that the evidence is clear as day if any one were to look at it.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Man you are really stuck on this "Constitution" issue eh.....

I've provided numerous examples of the "inherent right and free will of man"....if you refused to accept them than fine. But please explain to me the establishment of "rule-of-law" without the free will of man. Were some men created to be kings and meant to rule and other created simply to be their obedient slaves? Is there some difference that dictates such roles cannot be reversed were the one lower man to simply gain the strength and power to do so?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Oh really, I must be quite naive. And my history atrocius. So you do not have a Queen at the moment? She may be a "token" authority. But was such always the case. Were not certain English Kings and Queens of great authority. What happened? Was the son born to the King lacking the "Be A King Gene"? or did people, who had gained strength and power, happen to change the "rule-of-law" and seek the establishment of a revised government, one that incidentally allowed for progressively more change by the people.

Likewise, what say you concerning the French? did the royalty willing give their heads or were they demanded by the people?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Oh, I do get a gutt reaction to reading your post LegalBeagle but it has nothing to deal with the debates or my arguments.

Perhaps, one day you'll address my points instead of making an unending amount of presumptions and constantly creating your own "gutt" view and simply attacking me on things I've never said.

*shrug*

Oh well...I doubt it....never happened in any of the other debates we've had...can't imagining it starting now. *lol*

09/26/2005 04:19:32 PM · #55

At last - some reasons!

Originally posted by theSaj:

I've never once said that I "simply believe it" in fact

I find this kind of statement a bit irritating. From your penultimate post:

Originally posted by theSaj:

You see, I believe such to be "self-evident".

But I believe they have the inherent self-determined right to establish their own government and to over-throw the current government if need be.

Because, I believe no man has the right to rule over another outside of an agreed mutual governing rule of authority.

Lastly, you ask how do I make that decision...simply "I do".

And I will, and not out of arrogance, stand by that an "enslaved society" is wrong.

Lastly, I believe said device is very proportionate to said crime being perpetrated. "Rape with the possibility of death" and a preventative slightly harm inflicting restriction device. Seems quite modest. But then again, I believe that killing in self-defense is justified in a rape situation. And if a woman is being brutally raped and were to kill her perpetrator I believe she was within her rights to do so. The man suffered the consequences of his actions.

I'll simply put it this way. I believe they have the right to determine self-rule.

Only in the penultimate paragraph do you give a justification for the beliefs set out in that paragraph. Most of your other statements are unsubstantiated. Giving an example is not justification: If that were the case, I could probably find an example sufficiently abhorrent to justify anything. By way of a demonstration, look at the number of times you say "because". Until the last post, you almost never said it. When you did so, the reason you gave was belief. (eg: "Because, I believe no man has the right to rule over another outside of an agreed mutual governing rule of authority.")

That last line is a corker! comparing your statements:

Originally posted by theSaj:

I've never once said that I "simply believe it" in fact

I'll simply put it this way. I believe they have the right to determine self-rule.

Where's my crowbar?

However, in your last post, you have given lots of reasons, and used "because" regularly - much better.

I have not got time to answer the questions now (and I will continue to refrain from responding to the insults - "So yeah....I simply laugh and shake my head about that and bite my tongue from saying any more"????), have been working for 17 hours today already and still need to put in a few more. But I will try and get round to it soon, as the discussion has gotten a little more interesting.

09/26/2005 05:02:54 PM · #56

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Because, I believe no man has the right to rule over another outside of an agreed mutual governing rule of authority.

Lastly, you ask how do I make that decision...simply "I do".

But I've already given other reasons, etc. to give justification for my beliefs. Simply "I do". Yes, I do...I choose. The example inherent in that was that I choose to. That in itself, the demonstration of choice, is the example of proof. We have the means to choose. I choose. I have witnessed others choose.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

When you did so, the reason you gave was belief. (eg: "Because, I believe no man has the right to rule over another outside of an agreed mutual governing rule of authority.")

That last line is a corker! comparing your statements:

You're missing my point...and yes, I believe. But my point was on the obvious ability of choosing. The basis of "I do". The example of making a choice.

(I do apologize, I can see how my statements may not have conveyed that as clearly as they could have.)

The inherent self-evidence is man's ability to choose.

I believe in "rights & consequences"...I guess the real question is the justice of said consequences. For one has the ability to choose, even to choose to kill a man. And in killing a man there will be consequences. The question is the justice of those consequences or not.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I've never once said that I "simply believe it" in fact

I'll simply put it this way. I believe they have the right to determine self-rule.

Where's my crowbar?

The above must be taken in context. My arguement was a "choice" one. As expressed by the next segment of the above quoted paragraph.

"And if you tell me otherwise, if you attempt to put a cruel and oppressive governance over me I will do everything in my power to topple it. Even kill you if I must. And afterwards, endeavor to establish a rule of law that is fair, just, and given to liberty."

The fact is evident in that I can choose to do so. A government can tell me I have no right. But such is not the case. Any cognant man capable of choice has the right. They simply choose to. Now, whether they have the strength to accomplish their decision is an entirely different question.

Perhaps the extraneous usage of "believe" is partly to blame. I feel like if I don't qualify my statements I'm going to be criticized for making it seem like I am stating absolute facts and no one can express any other opinion. Than when I state "I believe" my arguments are not measured because I'm just stating a conviction. I am going to endeavor to use IMHO more often. It probably more clearly expresses such. (BTW, for any readers who are unaware of the meaning of IMHO, it = "In My Humble Opinion" and is an old netiquette discussion term.)

09/26/2005 05:29:48 PM · #57

You should also be aware that my gut instinct is that of course man should be free, and free to choose, and that should be a protected choice. Of course I understand your reactions. Personally, I don't agree with places that take away such choices, or operate on a different principle.

But I am not so full of self-belief that I cannot see that others have an alternative belief system, and that it being different does not make it automatically wrong. The issues will always be more complicated than you suggest (eg (and not because I want to discuss Iraq), but US and UK occupation could be considered repression of the people in some parts of that country. It does not automatically make that rule "wrong", or "invalid"). I don't agree with repression personally, and being from a free society background (constitutionally, moreso than the US), I would object to it if applied to me personally.

But where do rights come from? To answer one question, I kept on mentioning constitutions (small "c", not the US one) because they purport to give people "rights". They are the legal source of fundamental rights. But if it is not in a constitution, where does a "right" come from? How can it be defined clearly, when there are so many situations (examples can be used for and against many rights, though as I have said before these do not prove the validity or invalidity of a right)? You yourself qualified the right to self-government by reference to how much opression is dealt out by the ruling party. but how much oppression, to whom, and how many, before the right comes into existence? Is there a rule (I don't think that you could have a sensible rule based on this analysis - too many variables would make any test too vague)? If no rule, how do we decide when the balance is tipped unless by reference to our gut feeling? If it is a question of gut feeling, whose gut feeling is right? Is the existence of a right a personal thing, with no common rhyme nor reason? If so, how can it be said to be a common, or fundamental human right, when it is a personal decision as to when it applies?

Maybe we generalise it - make a sweeping statement. but how to apply it? who decides when it is invoked? who interprets the meaning of the statement? If it is a fundamental right, shouldn't it be obvious? If it is so obvious, why so many questions??

I have to come to a more pragmatic view that there is no single correct fundamental human right. They change depending upon the individual, his upbringing, his background, his society, his station, his time of life, his sex (!), the people around him, and the application of all of the same factors to those surrounding people. A huge web of interactions change our perceptions of life generally. It is such an amorphous thing that it cannot ever be, for me, "fundamental".

Instead, I think that there are very few rights. We choose to set some out legally for ourselves in constitutional documents. We speak of rights, but in reality we choose to act (that is an ability, not a "right") and we perceive ourselves as having rights by way of convenient shorthand. We decide some are very desirable, influenced by society, culture, history etc. So: the right to life (at least, our own) is more important in cultures where war, death and suffering are less common (compare the modern US or UK to Roman culture, in which "rights", duties, intangible factors, philosophy were very important, but where death and warmongering was a way of life and of amusement - very little "right to life" rhetoric generated out of that society for several centuries). The right to political freedom is more important where that is already an ideal. Things change slowly, and powerful nations change the nature of the world and the perception of rights worldwide (eg democracy and the US).

Rambling... tired - must do a bit more work then go home to bed. Realise I have answered no questions still.

Message edited by author 2005-09-26 19:08:44.