Phikokalia's Virtue Oriented World

Originally posted by @fmf
I disagree with this.

So what do you think of rights?

It is common to argue that all men always deserve certain inalienable rights, and that any government that does not abide by the same standard of maximizing the conditions conducive to the life, liberty, and the property rights of the people are oppressive. and in the worng because these are basic, fundamental rights of our existence.

What do you think of that idea?

LOL -- you do realize taht I have literally sat down and written the first paragraph of what is likely the reasons why you believe in something, because over the course of pages & pages you have not desired to accurately present anything of your opinions on this.

But you are a guy who racks up like two dozen posts a day.

Doesn't that make you feel kind of funny?

Originally posted by @philokalia
LOL -- you do realize taht I have literally sat down and written the first paragraph of what is likely the reasons why you believe in something, because over the course of pages & pages you have not desired to accurately present anything of your opinions on this.

I disagree. I think I have accurately presented my opinions on rights.

Originally posted by @philokalia
So what do you think of rights?

When it comes to rights, I think you should - like me - express your opinions - write as much or as little as you want to write, to do so in as many or as few posts as you see fit, and write at as much length as you think gets the job done to your own satisfaction..

Originally posted by @fmf
I disagree. I think I have accurately presented my opinions on rights.

Then I can literally only conclude that your views on this aren't deep.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Then I can literally only conclude that your views on this aren't deep.

You have the right to conclude what you want about how deep my interest is in discussing with you what you called my "schoolboy tripe" beliefs. I suggest you work for the kind of human rights you favour (whatever they are), or work against the ones you don't favour. Perhaps you could simply vote according to your conscience. Or you could just do nothing. Feel free to tell yourself you are deep.

Originally posted by @fmf
You have the right to conclude what you want about how deep my interest is in discussing with you what you called my "schoolboy tripe" beliefs. I suggest you work for the kind of human rights you favour (whatever they are), or work against the ones you don't favour. Perhaps you could simply vote according to your conscience. Or you could just do nothing. Feel free to tell yourself you are deep.

So, is that the whole of your concession speech?

It's over -- you give up..?

... And you give up without even really engaging?

Originally posted by @philokalia
So, is that the whole of your concession speech?

It's over -- you give up..?

... And you give up without even really engaging?

No. Why would I concede? I am quite satisfied with the extent of my contribution and with how I have expressed my viewpoint.

I agree with you that citizens having virtue is good. I agree with you about citizens having responsibilities being good. I rather thought that they were bears-poo-in-the-woods ideas from you, though.

By contrast, I do not agree with your vision of a society without freedoms and rights, and it's a disappointment that you have admitted to having no clue about what rights and freedoms there need to be for citizens in Indonesia in the wake of decades of military dictatorship.

So we agree on some things and disagree about others.

Why on earth would I "concede"? You have said absolutely nothing concrete whatsoever about real people and the real life or death implications of there being no protections from people in power ~ or from other citizens.

If you stood up in front of a group of Indonesians with a powerpoint and and a handout of screeds gleaned from far-right polemicists, what real stuff would you possibly have to say to them? I think you'd have nothing. .

So we can agree to disagree.