.............
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap
I'm a little surprised at both if you. You both argue so strongly in favour of rights, including your right to smoke in restaurants, but here we have people being tortured (and denied rights) and you both are in favour of it. Innocent people do get tortured.
I guess you're both really only concerned with your own rights.  |
This comment should be used in a textbook as a classic example of sloppy thinking.
First off, the comment that anybody is "in favor of rights" is just beyond stupid. It is literally meaningless. Collectivists are for collectivists rights. Individualists are for individualist rights. But the suggestion that anybody is "in favor of rights" is just meaningless.
Rights are not promoted in and of themselves. Rights are promoted as a byproduct of a political ideology.
If you were intelligent, you would be able to parse the ideology without anybody mentioning it.
Let's see. Right to freedom as long as that freedom doesn't impinge upon the freedom of others. That would be individualism.
And let's see, what did that say? "Right to freedom as long as that freedom doesn't impinge upon the freedom of others."
That implies that the right to freedom ceases to exist when that the actions of that person impinge upon the freedom of others. So that actively denies the rights of anybody to be terrorists.
The idea that anybody would be in favor of rights in the generic sense - only a dullard to come up with such an silly idea.
Quote:
|
Innocent people do get tortured.
|
So? Sloppy thinker refuses to draw a conclusion? Innocent people get tortured, therefore we should ban torture altogether?
Innocent people go to jail, so we should ban jail altogether?
Innocent people get prosecuted so we shouldn't prosecute anybody?
LOL.