Jump to content
Slee Mayo

Security Orb Creators and Owners

Recommended Posts

Just now, Gadget Portal said:

Personal space violation:  

PP56341006-Underneath-a-plane-in-the-sky

Don't make me tell you to eff off like I used to do on SLU. :P

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gadget Portal said:

Personal space violation:  

PP56341006-Underneath-a-plane-in-the-sky

Which as you know is total spoons

rl the person flying over cant look down and peer into your bedroom

sl they can

sl != rl

Scylla will be along to tell you off I am sure for equating rl and sl soon in 3....2.....1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Its not a right if you cant enforce it simple as that. You can talk about human rights all you like but in reality they are merely a fiction to make people like you feel warm and fuzzy

By that logic, those who are victims of human rights violations, genocide, etc. aren't really "victims," because their rights are unenforceable, or their government has decided that they don't have any?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Kanry.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KanryDrago said:

Scylla will be along to tell you off I am sure for equating rl and sl soon in 3....2.....1

Nah.

But I will give Gadget a thumbs up for being really amusing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

By that logic, those who are victims of human rights violations, genocide, etc. aren't really "victims," because their rights are unenforceable, or their government has decided that they don't have any?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Kanry.

 

Of course they are victims, they are victims of their governement but the fact remains a right you can't enforce isn't a right.

That is after all the crux of your argument about land here....they aren't rights because the lab can take them away from us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

By that logic, those who are victims of human rights violations, genocide, etc. aren't really "victims," because their rights are unenforceable, or their government has decided that they don't have any?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Kanry.

 

You might want to rethink this as First Nations people did not have governments. We had leaders that weren't really leaders. All those words used to describe them like chief, are extremely inaccurate on top of being European concepts that had no meaning for First Nations.

Edited by Selene Gregoire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

You might want to rethink this as First Nations people did not have governments. We had leaders that weren't really leaders. All those words used to describe them like chief, are extremely inaccurate on top of being European concepts that had no meaning for First Nations.

It is precisely my point that "rights" have nothing to do with governments. They are inherent to us all as humans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It is precisely my point that "rights" have nothing to do with governments. They are inherent to us all as humans.

Who decided these rights scylla....I think its my human right to have a billion dollars

If it makes you warm and fuzzy bleat on about your human rights all you like, just please wake up and realise they are fictional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

That is after all the crux of your argument about land here....they aren't rights because the lab can take them away from us

That is not the crux of my argument. My argument is that they are not "rights" because this isn't RL, your "land" isn't really land, and you do not "own" anything here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That is not the crux of my argument. My argument is that they are not "rights" because this isn't RL, your "land" isn't really land, and you do not "own" anything here.

And in rl you don't own anything either because your government can just say "oh that stuff you think you own, not yours anymore" whats the difference?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It is precisely my point that "rights" have nothing to do with governments. They are inherent to us all as humans.

The problem is you are talking about inalienable human rights and conflating them with legal rights granted by governments. They are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where sl and rl converge is

In sl you only have what the lab allow

in rl you only have what your government allow

There is no difference but you are trying to argue there is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

The problem is you are talking about inalienable human rights and conflating them with legal rights granted by governments. They are not the same thing.

Precisely my point its only inalienable if a government can't take it from you

therefore my statement the only human right you have is the right to die as its the one thing they cant take away from you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KanryDrago said:

And in rl you don't own anything either because your government can just say "oh that stuff you think you own, not yours anymore" whats the difference?

 

Well, that's an interesting point: I'm not a Marxist, and I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that "property is theft" -- but I'm not sure that I'd include property ownership as an inalienable right.

Kanry, if there are "rights," then there is no such thing as a violation of these. It's not merely that the government can violate your rights by taking you out back and shooting you: it's that it's perfectly OK for them to do so, and you have no cause to complain, because there is no standard against which to measure such behaviour.

Without the notion of rights, there is quite literally no "right" or "wrong" in human affairs.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KanryDrago said:

Precisely my point its only inalienable if a government can't take it from you

therefore my statement the only human right you have is the right to die as its the one thing they cant take away from you

....... yet.  (Dun dun DUN.....)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, that's an interesting point: I'm not a Marxist, and I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that "property is theft" -- but I'm not sure that I'd include property ownership as an inalienable right.

Kanry, if there are "rights," then there is no such thing as a violation of these. It's not merely that the government can violate your rights by taking you out back and shooting you: it's that it's perfectly OK for them to do so, and you have no cause to complain, because there is no standard against which to measure such behaviour.

Without the notion of rights, there is quite literally no "right" or "wrong" in human affairs.

Ah finally she gets it, there is no right or wrong, merely what you can enforce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KanryDrago said:

Precisely my point its only inalienable if a government can't take it from you

therefore my statement the only human right you have is the right to die as its the one thing they cant take away from you

Well we do have the right to breathe... so far... at least until they figure out a way to charge us for the oxygen and penalize us for the carbon emissions we breath out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

The problem is you are talking about inalienable human rights and conflating them with legal rights granted by governments. They are not the same thing.

I am doing no such thing, Selene. I have nowhere suggested that the government grants rights -- quite the contrary. My point is that RL rights are simply inapplicable to a virtual world precisely because it is virtual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I am doing no such thing, Selene. I have nowhere suggested that the government grants rights -- quite the contrary. My point is that RL rights are simply inapplicable to a virtual world precisely because it is virtual.

For something to be an inalienable human right scylla it has to be something a government can't take away on a whim

Kindly list all rights that qualify

for avoidance of doubt inalienable is

not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied;

Edited by KanryDrago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I am doing no such thing, Selene. I have nowhere suggested that the government grants rights -- quite the contrary. My point is that RL rights are simply inapplicable to a virtual world precisely because it is virtual.

Why should virtual be any different than RL when it comes to where your rights end and mine begin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luna Bliss said:

All rights spring from the notion that life has value.

Life has no value except to the possessor

 

3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Why should virtual be any different than RL when it comes to where your rights end and mine begin?

Because Scylla wants to fly her plane and you are being mean by not letting her but thats not being entitled in the least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, Scylla, I realize you don't actually believe every word you are saying. It's just that it is sometimes hard to tell when someone is deliberately taking the opposing side in a debate (forgot the term momentarily, it'll come... later today) just to be contrary and when they are not. So, please don't take anything I have said as personal or a personal attack on you. It wasn't meant that way. It's not always easy to keep a lid on the emotional turmoil such discussions can create. I know it shows through. It's not directed at you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Btw, Scylla, I realize you don't actually believe every word you are saying. It's just that it is sometimes hard to tell when someone is deliberately taking the opposing side in a debate (forgot the term momentarily, it'll come... later today) just to be contrary and when they are not. So, please don't take anything I have said as personal or a personal attack on you. It wasn't meant that way. It's not always easy to keep a lid on the emotional turmoil such discussions can create. I know it shows through. It's not directed at you.

devils advocate is the phrase you are looking for

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...