Rights as an abstract concept... should we find something else:

[DunderMifflin]

17 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Oh yay.... the victim card has been played.

Did no one call me a child?

Did I not get accused of derailing the thread?

I'm not allowed to mention that without "victim card"

[Rorshach]

Nah, it was more the way you whined to Scot when he asked you to take a spesific discussion to a spesific thread dedicated to that spesific subject.

If you are doing more here than trolling (I remain unconvinced as of yet), you understand that. Pissy responses like the previous one, and possible follow-ups to this (and perhaps subsequent posts) will be treated as evidence of trolling.

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

Nah, it was more the way you whined to Scot when he asked you to take a spesific discussion to a spesific thread dedicated to that spesific subject.

If you are doing more here than trolling (I remain unconvinced as of yet), you understand that. Pissy responses like the previous one, and possible follow-ups to this (and perhaps subsequent posts) will be treated as evidence of trolling.

I was accused of derailing the thread and called a child, it happened.

 

Also here we have the bread and butter Step #3 I'm super dead now.

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Oh, I agree.  Where my "right" to do X interferes or interacts with DM's "right" to do Y things become complicated and the interaction and competing interests of the two existing rights need to be evaluated and weighed.  That's where law or custom comes into play.
 

Scot, what I remember of my course is that the books were very thick, and the ideas contained within were extremely dense, with respect to their arguments, and that my professor, who had done his thesis on this same subject, acknowledged that even he was unsure of what rights we actually have and what rights talk actually entails. It was a fascinating semester but it has bent my brain out of shape. Oh, and I did pass, handily.

[Rorshach]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I was accused of derailing the thread and called a child, it happened.

 

Also here we have the bread and butter Step #3 I'm super dead now.

I know. That 1) doesn't mean that claim one is incorrect (in fact, it is probably correct) and 2) doesn't in any way, shape of form show that the claim of "victim card playing" relates to you not liking these two claims. 

Basically, I'm saying you should improve your reading skills and arguing skills, they are both failing you here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

Why? so your cheering gallery can call me a child and accuse me of singlehandedly derailing the the thread while you and many others go down the same tracks I do b4 I even go there? No thank you.

Dude just stop. Either admit you're in the wrong or silently walk away. 

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dude just stop. Either admit you're in the wrong or silently walk away. 

Or how about you do admit you are wrong or silently walk away.

[DunderMifflin]

20 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

I know. That 1) doesn't mean that claim one is incorrect (in fact, it is probably correct) and 2) doesn't in any way, shape of form show that the claim of "victim card playing" relates to you not liking these two claims. 

Basically, I'm saying you should improve your reading skills and arguing skills, they are both failing you here.

The fact that I didn't derail it makes it incorrect.

The fact that I'm years past childhood makes me not a child.

I don't even know what your 2) is about there. 

[Guy Kilmore]

Is this performance art?

[maarsen]

As mentioned above, delineating what exactly is a right can be a stroll into the Grimpen Mire. Is there a right to life? If so how do you pursue a remedy once your life is taken away? A right to life is only meaningful if there is a remedy to it being taken away. The only way to pursue a remedy is to have another do so on your behalf. Thus the right to freely associate is needed. Once you have that, a social contract can be drawn up and the terms enforced. However having a social contract also gives you obligations that you must follow its terms. A right and and obligation are the obverse and the reverse of the same coin. You cannot expect to have rights and opt out of the social contract at the same time. 

I suppose the only right that has any meaning is the right to freely associate. All else follows from this. Any thoughts on this  Scot?

[Rorshach]

2 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

The fact that I didn't derail it makes it incorrect.

The fact that I'm years past childhood makes me not a child.

I don't even know what your 2) is about there. 

See, this is a great example of my last claim - that you should read more carefully and argue better. 

Your first line is an unsupported assertion. It will not be taken seriously, and it shouldn't, seeing as it offers no argument for or reasoning behind the assertion itself. 

The second line ignores the fact that I didn't mention this. The existence of this line just serves as whining. 

The third shows you to be a not too careful reader. Try again. Be spesific, ask for further clarification, offer attempts at understanding. Improve.

 

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

See, this is a great example of my last claim - that you should read more carefully and argue better. 

Your first line is an unsupported assertion. It will not be taken seriously, and it shouldn't, seeing as it offers no argument for or reasoning behind the assertion itself. 

The second line ignores the fact that I didn't mention this. The existence of this line just serves as whining. 

The third shows you to be a not too careful reader. Try again. Be spesific, ask for further clarification, offer attempts at understanding. Improve.

 

So what? So was accussing me of derailing, its an unsupported assertion. Are you  suggesting we have some sort of fair trial where we decide if I derailed the thread and if I'm actually a child or not? If not, I'm sticking with I didn't derail the thread nor am I a child.  I'll deal with being accused of playing the victim card, whatever the fuck that actually means.

 

[Rorshach]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

So what? So was accussing me of derailing, its an unsupported assertion. Are you  suggesting we have some sort of fair trial where we decide if I derailed the thread and if I'm actually a child or not? If not, I'm sticking with I didn't derail the thread nor am I a child.  I'll deal with being accused of playing the victim card, whatever the fuck that actually means.

 

You're really funny. With every answer, you continue to pile on evidence to my final claim - you being a sloppy reader. You've heard of the saying "when in a hole, stop digging"? No? Think about it before continuing.

 

 

 

 

Done thinking? Good. Now, you say

8 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

So was accussing me of derailing, its an unsupported assertion.

What I actually wrote was

 

2 hours ago, Rorshach said:

I know. That 1) doesn't mean that claim one is incorrect (in fact, it is probably correct)

Note the "probably"? That sort of diminishes the "assertion" part. But still, I wrote - before that

 

2 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Nah, it was more the way you whined to Scot when he asked you to take a spesific discussion to a spesific thread dedicated to that spesific subject.

This is part of the context (it is actually two posts ahead of the first of mine I quoted), and it is an argument. So, no, my position wasn't unsupported. Read carefully next time (I've said something among those lines before, haven't I?)

Further, you write

12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

 Are you  suggesting we have some sort of fair trial where we decide if I derailed the thread and if I'm actually a child or not? If not, I'm sticking with I didn't derail the thread nor am I a child.

I'd like you to show where I bothered adressing this claim. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Done looking? Good. Now drop that silliness when adressing me, please. and read more carefully in the future.

 

 

 

This post has sort of a theme. Can you spot it? 

[DunderMifflin]

14 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

You're really funny. With every answer, you continue to pile on evidence to my final claim - you being a sloppy reader. You've heard of the saying "when in a hole, stop digging"? No? Think about it before continuing.

 

 

 

 

Done thinking? Good. Now, you say

What I actually wrote was

 

Note the "probably"? That sort of diminishes the "assertion" part. But still, I wrote - before that

 

This is part of the context (it is actually two posts ahead of the first of mine I quoted), and it is an argument. So, no, my position wasn't unsupported. Read carefully next time (I've said something among those lines before, haven't I?)

Further, you write

I'd like you to show where I bothered adressing this claim. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Done looking? Good. Now drop that silliness when adressing me, please. and read more carefully in the future.

 

 

 

This post has sort of a theme. Can you spot it? 

OK well I didn't derail the thread nor did I probably derail it.
Looks like you are derailing it though with this tangent about how my reading sucks or whatever this is that you are doing here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

OK well I didn't derail the thread nor did I probably derail it.
Looks like you are derailing it though with this tangent about how my reading sucks or whatever this is that you are doing here.

You absolutely did, and even if the claim was inaccurate, which it is not, what you've been doing by whining about it is in and of itself a form of derailment. The purpose of this thread was to have a difficult and substantive philosophical conversation and you have completely destroyed that. 

[DunderMifflin]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You absolutely did, and even if the claim was inaccurate, which it is not, what you've been doing by whining about it is in and of itself a form of derailment. The purpose of this thread was to have a difficult and substantive philosophical conversation and you have completely destroyed that. 

I absolutely did not. 

Perhaps create a new thread if you want to continue to discuss whether or not I derailed this thread because what you are doing here  absolutely is derailment.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Is this performance art?

In need of some serious workshopping, but yes. Yes it is.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

24 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

OK well I didn't derail the thread nor did I probably derail it.
Looks like you are derailing it though with this tangent about how my reading sucks or whatever this is that you are doing here.

The question at this point isn't whether or not you derailed the thread, it's whether or not this derailment should be considered a right or an entitlement. Or perhaps even a privilege?

[Rorshach]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

The question at this point isn't whether or not you derailed the thread, it's whether or not this derailment should be considered a right or an entitlement. Or perhaps even a privilege?

It is probably a right to priviliged entitlement. 

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

The question at this point isn't whether or not you derailed the thread, it's whether or not this derailment should be considered a right or an entitlement. Or perhaps even a privilege?

But it's someone else is  the one that needs workshopping? This isn't even cleverly hidden