3 ms·

> Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. You

> Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. You're analysing my point backwards. Fundamental right aren't more important because the state can't suspect them... they are more important, so the state shouldn't suspend them. Do we now agree, or do you still disagree even with the order corrected? > Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. Okay, slow down and take the time to read what I actually wrote, because you're quoting and arguing against something I didn't say... and being kinda rude with it. I'm fine being easy-going about your manners, but if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote then writing more is kinda pointless.

narag 10y ago
Look, if you stray from initial point and keep moving goal posts, don't expect me to be kind. You first wrote this: Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. That seems like a clear (and wrong) point. Free speech, freedom to move and so on are human rights and everybody understand that. One prisoner has none of these. So first you make an obliquous attack on private property, you don't say it's not a human right, but you create a distintion between "basic" and "advanced" human rights and proceed to define a rule that separates ones from the others. But that rule doesn't work. We suspend basic human rights to prisoners because, well, they're prisoners and there are good reasons to do it. Now you say that the point is backwards because casuality is the other way around. But it makes no difference. Please explain what it is said difference if you disagree. But then, you would have no point at all, it's just your opinion on what should be. Also you blatantly misrepresent what I said: You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom That's taking a clear point (that without private property there is no freedom) and introducing a scale of "more private property" vs "less private property", that's also misleading, because all the countries that you mention have well protected private property. So you're consistently trying to dilute others' points, making distracting distinctions and then ignoring the original points. I hadn't complained, but it's not a nice way to discuss, FYI.
- richmarr 10y ago
  > Look, if you stray from initial point and keep moving goal posts, don't expect me to be kind. I'm not asking you to be kind. I expect you to either read what I write, or be polite enough to discuss the misunderstandings without being rude. Neither of those have consistently been the case so far. You feel like I'm moving goalposts, I don't see how that's true because I've spent most of this conversation trying to interpret and reword the things you're saying to openly attempt to understand what you're getting at. I haven't found your comments so far very clear. >... Also you blatantly misrepresent what I said Not at all. I said openly that I didn't follow your point: "Sorry I'm not sure what your point is here. You SEEM to be..." [emphasis added]. I don't think it's a reasonable position that I'm "blatantly misrepresenting" what you said there. I openly stated my confusion at the point you were trying to make. I'm happy to discuss opposing views but please drop the attitude. It's neither helpful nor necessary... but I'll have another go at trying to find the source of our disagreement. > That seems like a clear (and wrong) point. Free speech, freedom to move and so on are human rights and everybody understand that. One prisoner has none of these. I disagree. Prisoners should have fundamental rights (and do in many cases, it varies wildly). There are organisations who spend a lot of time watching for & correcting human rights violations within the criminal justice system (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, ACLU). Freedom to move is a point worth discussing too. I think "freedom to move" while often discussed as a fundamental right is interpreted as freedom of residence, or to not be stopped while travelling around a state; I don't think it means everyone should be allowed to go everywhere at all times. I don't think anyone would think it reasonable to let serial killers roam around freely. > But that rule doesn't work. We suspend basic human rights to prisoners because, well, they're prisoners and there are good reasons to do it. So your assertion here is that prisoners are stripped of all human rights? Which country does that?

narag 10y ago

Look, if you stray from initial point and keep moving goal posts, don't expect me to be kind. You first wrote this: Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. That seems like a clear (and wrong) point. Free speech, freedom to move and so on are human rights and everybody understand that. One prisoner has none of these. So first you make an obliquous attack on private property, you don't say it's not a human right, but you create a distintion between "basic" and "advanced" human rights and proceed to define a rule that separates ones from the others. But that rule doesn't work. We suspend basic human rights to prisoners because, well, they're prisoners and there are good reasons to do it. Now you say that the point is backwards because casuality is the other way around. But it makes no difference. Please explain what it is said difference if you disagree. But then, you would have no point at all, it's just your opinion on what should be. Also you blatantly misrepresent what I said: You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom That's taking a clear point (that without private property there is no freedom) and introducing a scale of "more private property" vs "less private property", that's also misleading, because all the countries that you mention have well protected private property. So you're consistently trying to dilute others' points, making distracting distinctions and then ignoring the original points. I hadn't complained, but it's not a nice way to discuss, FYI.

richmarr 10y ago
> Look, if you stray from initial point and keep moving goal posts, don't expect me to be kind. I'm not asking you to be kind. I expect you to either read what I write, or be polite enough to discuss the misunderstandings without being rude. Neither of those have consistently been the case so far. You feel like I'm moving goalposts, I don't see how that's true because I've spent most of this conversation trying to interpret and reword the things you're saying to openly attempt to understand what you're getting at. I haven't found your comments so far very clear. >... Also you blatantly misrepresent what I said Not at all. I said openly that I didn't follow your point: "Sorry I'm not sure what your point is here. You SEEM to be..." [emphasis added]. I don't think it's a reasonable position that I'm "blatantly misrepresenting" what you said there. I openly stated my confusion at the point you were trying to make. I'm happy to discuss opposing views but please drop the attitude. It's neither helpful nor necessary... but I'll have another go at trying to find the source of our disagreement. > That seems like a clear (and wrong) point. Free speech, freedom to move and so on are human rights and everybody understand that. One prisoner has none of these. I disagree. Prisoners should have fundamental rights (and do in many cases, it varies wildly). There are organisations who spend a lot of time watching for & correcting human rights violations within the criminal justice system (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, ACLU). Freedom to move is a point worth discussing too. I think "freedom to move" while often discussed as a fundamental right is interpreted as freedom of residence, or to not be stopped while travelling around a state; I don't think it means everyone should be allowed to go everywhere at all times. I don't think anyone would think it reasonable to let serial killers roam around freely. > But that rule doesn't work. We suspend basic human rights to prisoners because, well, they're prisoners and there are good reasons to do it. So your assertion here is that prisoners are stripped of all human rights? Which country does that?