Originally posted by no1marauderI can only analyze the assertions before me. I can't take on the burden of precisely formulating and rationalizing everybody's viewpoint for them. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they have already taken the trouble to do it for themselves, especially since the issues are so important to them.
No. I think they are using the term "right" in a manner I wouldn't. If I said that sentence it would be absurd given my definition of rights. Since their definition is more malleable, the statement is not absurd.
Originally posted by no1marauderHow am I being evasive? Both claims are wrong.
You're being evasive. When did Ivanhoe take over your account?
The first is wrong because the asserted right is not actually a right.
The second is wrong because what is asserted to be wise is acutally unwise.
The two claims are different, and my analysis of each is different. The only relation between them is that I charaterize them as being incorrect.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLook, if you take the term 'right to X' to mean 'the government ought to provide or protect access to X', then the feminists' claim isn't absurd at all (in fact, it's true!). Many, many people use the term 'right' in this way, because they take the term 'right' to be essentially part of political discourse. If you want to distinguish, as no1 does, between moral and legal rights, then you can rephrase the feminists' claims accordingly. It is only if you refuse to understand what the feminists are actually asserting that their 'assertion' seems absurd.
I can only analyze the assertions before me. I can't take on the burden of precisely formulating and rationalizing everybody's viewpoint for them. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they have already taken the trouble to do it for themselves, especially since the issues are so important to them.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou were being evasive because you did not answer the question. Why would a mere difference in rhetoric make any substantive difference? Since you and I both know that people who say health care is a "right" aren't using the term as we would, it's ridiculous to say that you oppose National Health Insurance because it's not a "right".
How am I being evasive? Both claims are wrong.
The first is wrong because the asserted right is not actually a right.
The second is wrong because what is asserted to be wise is acutally unwise.
The two claims are different, and my analysis of each is different. The only relation between them is that I charaterize them as being incorrect.
EDIT: I hate it when bbarr states what I was trying to say in a more lucid and succinct manner than I can. Bastard.ðŸ˜
Originally posted by bbarrOn what basis do you think the government ought to compel employers to pay for maternity leave, and does that basis also lead to the conclusion that men ought to be able to take a 9-month paid break to do something of their choosing?
Look, if you take the term 'right to X' to mean 'the government ought to provide or protect access to X', then the feminists' claim isn't absurd at all (in fact, it's true!).
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know that at all. In fact, I think you're wrong. Most people who assert rights actually think that they are entitled to those things as you and I use the term. They don't think that it is merely the wisest way for society to vote. They think it is something they are entitled to regardless of any hypothetical or real vote.
You were being evasive because you did not answer the question. Why would a mere difference in rhetoric make any substantive difference? Since you and I both know that people who say health care is a "right" aren't using the term as we would, it's ridiculous to say that you oppose National Health Insurance because it's not a "right".
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst, I think the government ought to compel employers to pay for parental leave, not merely maternity leave. I think the government would be justified in doing so because that is what we would agree to under the hypothetical conditions of negotiation mentioned above.
On what basis do you think the government ought to compel employers to pay for maternity leave, and does that basis also lead to the conclusion that men ought to be able to take a 9-month paid break to do something of their choosing?
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBut wouldn't we also under those condidtions agree to a 9-month chess leave for those who choose to not have children?
First, I think the government ought to compel employers to pay for parental leave, not merely maternity leave. I think the government would be justified in doing so because that is what we would agree to under the hypothetical conditions of negotiation mentioned above.