quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

As distateful as you or I might find his actions, I would have to say he was within his rights.  As stated so many times: no one has a right to not be offended. 

Keep in mind this other topic is concerned with race, a whole different can of worms.  Seems to me - and this is just my humble opinion - that if the group was so intimidated by one nutball teen then they really need to re-group and grow a few spines.  Maybe have a few really big bad-ass-mo-fo's standing at the front of the line, lookin' all menacing and such... 

And as for the residents of Crivits, sounds like they should grow a few spianl cells of their own.  Maybe our boy Vito really is just a whiny little bitch who didn't get his way.  You can't charge people with that (too bad, though) and you sure as hell can't deny his right to be a whiny little bitch.

I SO want to see how the court case turns out.

~Dave 

quote:

And i think sometimes we have focused so much on the rights of the few that we trample over the rights of the many

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

And i think sometimes we have focused so much on the rights of the few that we trample over the rights of the many

The many have no rights. Each member of the "many" has their individual rights, but collectively they have no rights. If the rights of each individual, however distatseful the individual is, are not protected, then nobody has any rights.

This is not a new concept, but it is a well established one.

quote:

The "many" can also be considered to be an individual composed of a collection of components, just as an individual is a collection of cells. Each cell doesnt have rights, but the organism as a whole does.

quote:

The analogy in business law is that a corporation, while "physically" a collective of individual shareholders and officers, IS consdidered to be an individual and all rights/duties conferred to an individual person are similarly applied to corporations.

quote:

In that context society as a whole certainly does have rights

quote:

and individuals within it have no rights when they conflict with the needs of society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

The "many" can also be considered to be an individual composed of a collection of components, just as an individual is a collection of cells. Each cell doesnt have rights, but the organism as a whole does.

This is a ridiculous analogy on so many levels that it really doesn't warrent even passing consideration, however I will give it some ('cause I'm just a nice guy). Individual cells cannot survive on their own without the organism as a whole yes they can, and do, thus the individual cell cannot be considered without the entire organism. likewise, the organism cannot be considered without considering the individual cellsThis is not the case with a person and society. While society as a whole may make the individual's life better and easier and more pleseant, the individual does not need society to survive, utter nonsense, societies evolved precisely to help the individual survive and prosperthus the individual can be considered outside of society, and thus can have rights.I didnt say the couldnt, I said they lose those rights when they conflict with society

quote:

The analogy in business law is that a corporation, while "physically" a collective of individual shareholders and officers, IS consdidered to be an individual and all rights/duties conferred to an individual person are similarly applied to corporations.

Not exactly. A corporation cannot vote, run for office, has no right to freedom of religion, nor to freedom of speech (think false advertising laws). A corporation is a legal fiction created to limit the liability of the shareholders, it is in no way considered a person in the full legal sense. thats why its an analogy Yes one can sue a corproation, but a corporation cannot be charged with murder,actually it can in civil court, and its officers in criminal court nor can a corporation be imprisoned. dittoA corporation is treated as a legal entity in very specific and limited areas of law, and the rights granted in the Constituation are not one of those areas.

quote:

In that context society as a whole certainly does have rights

Alright, I'll bite. Exactly what rights does the Constitution grant to society? Obviously in your view that a society cant have rights it doesnt. Under the view that society is an entity, all rights under the constitution are granted to society

quote:

and individuals within it have no rights when they conflict with the needs of society.

If this were true, then the individual has no rights whatsoever, only privelidges grented at the convenience of society. bingo, you got one right (as in correct)

quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra

This is one of those threads that serves to remind me of the cultural differences between the US and good old Europe, which at times seem to be more vast and insurmountable than the ocean dividing them.

Arpig and Panda, as well as others, have quite eloquently argued the side of this debate which I identify with, and that leaves my to stand by, shake my head, roll my eyes, and mutter "All this over a piece of cloth! Americans!".

quote:

Yes one can sue a corproation, but a corporation cannot be charged with murder,actually it can in civil court, and its officers in criminal court nor can a corporation be imprisoned. ditto

quote:

While society as a whole may make the individual's life better and easier and more pleseant, the individual does not need society to survive, utter nonsense, societies evolved precisely to help the individual survive and prosper

quote:

and thus can have rights.I didnt say the couldnt, I said they lose those rights when they conflict with society

quote:

If this were true, then the individual has no rights whatsoever, only privelidges grented at the convenience of society. bingo, you got one right (as in correct)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

Yes one can sue a corproation, but a corporation cannot be charged with murder,actually it can in civil court, and its officers in criminal court nor can a corporation be imprisoned. ditto

Its officers can be charged, as you were so kind to point out. They are individuals, they are not the corporation. Also, one cannot be charged with murder in a civil court, only in a criminal court. the officers can be charged with crimes committed by the corporation, whether or not they committed them themselves. It is not a matter of individuals.

quote:

While society as a whole may make the individual's life better and easier and more pleseant, the individual does not need society to survive, utter nonsense, societies evolved precisely to help the individual survive and prosper

Yes, that is exactly what I said, society makes the individual's life better and easier, or to rephrase to help the individual survive and prosper. You will note that even you used the word "help", society is not a requirement for the survival of the individual. The individual exists regardless of the existance of a surrounding society. We would not exist if societies hadnt been formed in the past. There are numerous examples of hazards that were overcome only through organization.

quote:

and thus can have rights.I didnt say the couldnt, I said they lose those rights when they conflict with society

Actually you just did say they had no rights, for if one's "rights" are lost when they conflict with an amorphous, indefinable, constantly changing abstract such as "society", then they are not rights at all, merely priveledges temporarily granted. (see my last point and your comment on it....you see you DID say that the individual has no rights.

quote:

If this were true, then the individual has no rights whatsoever, only privelidges grented at the convenience of society. bingo, you got one right (as in correct)

Well blow me down!! An American who says he has no rights! I swear I never thought I'd see the day. and you cant fucking read or again are intentionally twisting my words. Do it again and your on ignore. I said what rights we have are granted by society, not that there arent any and you damn well know thats what I said.
I hate to break it to you, but your view is rather the minority (as in possibly a minority of 1) view in your country.

I for one am glad that I do not live in the crypto-fascist world of your imagination, I live in a world where the individual has certain rights that are protected against tyranny, whether that of a government, or that of society at large. Nowhere in the US Constitution are any rights granted to society, they are all granted to individuals, it is the same thing with the Canadian constitution. They are individual rights, and they trump the desires of society. That is the way the rules are written, and that is the way they should be enforced, anything else and we are not free, we are, to paraphrase John Lennon, just fucking peasants.

quote:

the officers can be charged with crimes committed by the corporation, whether or not they committed them themselves. It is not a matter of individuals.

quote:

and you cant fucking read or again are intentionally twisting my words. Do it again and your on ignore. I said what rights we have are granted by society, not that there arent any and you damn well know thats what I said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

the officers can be charged with crimes committed by the corporation, whether or not they committed them themselves. It is not a matter of individuals.

And the the reason why the officers can be charged with that crime is because the corproation cannot commit a crime, it is not a real thing, it is a legal fiction. When a corproation does something illegal, it is the individuals who run the corporation who have commited the crime, not the corproation. So it IS a matter of individuals.

quote:

and you cant fucking read or again are intentionally twisting my words. Do it again and your on ignore. I said what rights we have are granted by society, not that there arent any and you damn well know thats what I said.

Again the questioning of my literacy, way to keep things above board.
You said: "and individuals within it have no rights when they conflict with the needs of society.".  In reply, I said: "If this were true, then the individual has no rights whatsoever, only privelidges grented at the convenience of society.".  To which you replied "bingo, you got one right (as in correct)".

I am sorry but I cannot see this as meaning anything other than you see nobody as having rights, only privelidges granted by society. I maintain that our present societies are built around the concept that we have rights that exist in spite of society, not because of it. That they are rights, not priviledges, that they are inherent in our nature, not granted to use by a beneficent society. And since these are inherent rights, unalienable rights, society cannot take them away from us.

And if this gets me "ignored" oh well, I am somehow pretty damned certain that my life will continue along its appointed path uninterrupted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

And i think sometimes we have focused so much on the rights of the few that we trample over the rights of the many

The many have no rights. Each member of the "many" has their individual rights, but collectively they have no rights. If the rights of each individual, however distatseful the individual is, are not protected, then nobody has any rights.

This is not a new concept, but it is a well established one.

quote:

There is no such thing as "inherent" or "inalienable" rights.

quote:

Actually, lately there has been movement in the international community to draft a covenant for group rights. In many human rights circles, group rights are considered the third generation of human rights, after political/civil, and social/economic, respectively.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So our rights are granted by society,and are not as Mr. Jefferson articulated "inalienable" and granted by our creator......Dammit I was rather fond of those self evident truths...and now willbur tells me this isn't so!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

There is no such thing as "inherent" or "inalienable" rights.

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity"
~ Virginia Declaration of Rights; June 12, 1776

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
~ Declaration of Independance; July 4, 1776

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
~ Universal Declaration of Human Rights; December 10, 1948

Sorry willbeur, but I will take their word over yours as to the inherent and inalienable nature of one's rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra

Arpig and Panda, as well as others, have quite eloquently argued the side of this debate which I identify with, and that leaves my to stand by, shake my head, roll my eyes, and mutter "All this over a piece of cloth! Americans!".