First off. Youre not a 'forum lawyer'. It isnt necessary to present exhibits A, B and C then round of with an emotive damnation and the promise of seeing the blighter to a ten stretch in the pen.
I think people can follow threads.
: And you CONTINUE to defend pollution (made by the minority).
No Stoller you continue to appeal to consequences which may or may not happen as the basis for arguing the principle! I think you commented on my intellectual 'desperation' or something but this is far better!
How could this be used against other people on this forum?
Farinata: "I believe that super novae happen in spiral arms quite frequently"
BS : "Youre supporting massive radiation doses you beast!"
Lark : "I like video games"
BS : "So you think some children suffering epileptic fits is good do you, you beast!"
Gort : "I think aircraft are great"
BS : "So you liked in when 250 people died in that airplane disaster did you? You beast!"
Dont argue from possible consequences - what follows was much better and you could have gone straight to it without the silly character assassination attempts couldn't you? Come on now - you're anticipation is about to be met......
: Funny how you are so concerned about YOUR 49% getting a raw deal when your 'free market' democracy (in this example) will give MY 51% a raw deal.
They neither belong to us, nor are represented by us Barry. Were both way 'out there' as far as popular opinion goes.
: You try to posit majoritarian democracy as trampling on the 'rights' of the minority when 'free market' democracy gets to trample on the rights of the MAJORITY.
What rights? You haven't defined them at all. At least David does. All you seem to think is that rights are whatever the majority decide - well be careful what you wish for - why do you think youre unhappy with the situation now? Do you really think the majority is laying down trampled?
On liberty (hmm, sounds good for a book title) I would quote;
" Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" (The Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789)
Pretty open to interpretation isnt it? What does constitute those exceptions which assure the other people can do that which injures no one else? Whats injury?
Its this which is you're worthy point below
: For example: freedom to or freedom from? Your automobile driving 'rights' trample on my breathing rights. We cannot be in favor of BOTH positive AND negative rights here (sorry, Lark). We MUST CHOOSE between one or another.
Youre right. Positive rights require the absolution of negative rights. A right to food obliges someone somewhere to provide it - it ties him to its production to meet the right, the producer of the means by which positive rights are satiated cannot choose to walk away and if he does then the right and obligation must be enforced - viciously if necessary - if its to have any meaning.
Does anyone else see the implication of this?
btw - how would calling you a fascist and saying you have a point be the same thing?