You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

13 Pages«<910111213>
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline zombieslayer  
#151 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 2:26:59 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


I'd like you to know ... no one gave me my thoughts, I thought of those on my own. It's things I think about it. I'm not afraid of a guy who's bigger/stronger than me, I'm more likely to be afraid of the guy who's crazy and unpredictable.


Understood about the thoughts. Thought overlap happens. Heck, I often have the same thoughts from everyone from Michael Moore to Michael Savage.

Now as for crazy and unpredictable, I'm scared of them too. Thus is why I want to be armed at all times. Being armed gives me a better chance at surviving or at least making sure my wife and son survive.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline zombieslayer  
#152 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 2:31:48 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
What is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege."

For me, a right is something that exists by virtum,o9-0e of being a human being. I have a right to believe as I will, no matter how loony my particular beliefs might be. I have a right to call someone a loony, even if they are as smart as Einstein and as wise as Solomon.

A privilege is something that I don't have unless someone else gives it to me. My neighbor gives it to me, perhaps: My neighbor invites me into his house for dinner. That's a privilege, my neighbor's to grant and take away as he wills. Or maybe it's granted by the govenment. Most people would consider a license to practice law or medicine or hair styling is a "privilege" granted by the state.

Your "title" in your real estate is a privilege: almost all "private property" titles are there because of a grant from King or state. And yes, that title is a revocable privilege: the state can take it back. (thanks to the law of eminent domain, only for a "public purpose" and only with compensation.)

On the other hand, it's not clear, at least to me, whether those "public purpose" and "only with compensation" requirements constitute "right" or "privilege".

Privileges can be taken away. Rights cannot.

All that people can do with respect to another's right is stop or limit its exercise. But if the right exists, stopping or limiting its exercise will be an immoral act unless a separate and superseding right is found and unless it is demonstrated that the method protects that separate and superseding right.

Power can infringe a right; it cannot by itself make the infringement moral.

So Shawn's point about "right or privilege" is the real issue here. (His conclusion is wrong, IMO, but he's definitely got the question right.)

Why should air travel be thought a right, rather than a privilege?

My answer is in too steps. First, because "being able to move and travel about" is a right. And second, because "other travel options" are not equivalent.

Why is being able to move and travel about so important? It allows escape from bad situations and allows movement toward better ones. It allows us to associate with who we want to associate with. It allows us to act upon our preferences and our values. You can't pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" unless you are able to move about.

Why are other travel options not equivalent? To be blunt, they're more expensive. Not necessarily in the sense of money, but in the sense of "what must be sacrificed" to do so. I don't need a plane to go to Portugal or to Denver. I can get to either place physically in other ways. But only if I make a lot bigger sacrifices -- Portugal's going to take more time and money to get there by car/ship/train; Denver's going to take more time and dealing with other drivers and getting lost on the highway and dealing with car breakdowns, etc.

If I had no right to travel and move about, none of these "extra costs" would be relevant. But if I do have that general right to travel, they are. Because now those differential costs are being imposed by a restriction on a right. And so the burden has shifted: those wishing to limit my right to travel must explain why they are justified in doing so.

If they don't, then they may still have the power to restrict and shape my choices. But they have no moral authority for doing so.

They have no more moral authority than those who used their power to treat people as serfs. If moving and travelling about is a privilege, then only allowing the serf off the manorial lands under very limited conditions, or not allowing them off at all, then the lord of the manor had moral authority for the practice of serfdom. But if moving and travelling about is a basic right of human beings, then serfdom was morally without authority.


+1.

Brilliant. Yes, traveling is a Right, not a privilege.

I HAVE to travel. I don't have a choice. I fly from city to city and want to be able to defend myself as I am a good guy and I'm sick of being treated like a criminal in my own country.

If you make me drive from here to Denver, I will be fired. I won't make it on time and will miss two days of work each way. As far as I'm concerned, the TSA only manages to disarm the good guys. And make the lines much, much longer. They're useless and a waste of tax money and as I've said before, I don't like being touched by strangers, unless they're Victoria's Secret models.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Zero2Cool  
#153 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 12:10:23 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Wow, flying is a right? You're a citizen, not the king. That's one helluva high horse you're riding there. Yes, I am laughing while typing this. I just can't believe the audacity in such thoughts.

It's people who hold that similar thought about driving that are the worst drivers. This road is my RIGHT to drive because I paid taxes. No, poop you, it's not your road, its not your right, its a privilege and should be appreciated as such.

I don't remember reading anything about flying in the Bill of Rights, then again, there weren't enough pictures in it to keep my attention.

You don't HAVE to travel. You can find new employment that doesn't require travel. You chose your career.

I want to drive a Lamborghini Diablo SV. There are several professions I'm qualified for that I could satisfy that want. I chose to be a software programmer and father instead.



I'm not a fan of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration team and especially less a fan with it being funded from tax payers money. I think they should lighten up and be funded by each airline. Although, then flights would cost more. I think they provide a false sense of security to some degree.

There has to be some security measures taken prior to boarding a plane. We all absorb the cost via taxes or those of us who fly absorb higher flight costs.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#154 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 12:12:45 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


I'd like you to know ... no one gave me my thoughts, I thought of those on my own. It's things I think about it. I'm not afraid of a guy who's bigger/stronger than me, I'm more likely to be afraid of the guy who's crazy and unpredictable.


Understood about the thoughts. Thought overlap happens. Heck, I often have the same thoughts from everyone from Michael Moore to Michael Savage.

Now as for crazy and unpredictable, I'm scared of them too. Thus is why I want to be armed at all times. Being armed gives me a better chance at surviving or at least making sure my wife and son survive.


IF we were allowed to carry a knife to a specified length on board a plane, I'd be fine with that. It'd be up to each person to learn how to handle themselves with a knife to defend themselves. Don't take the time to learn and lose a knife fight, that's your fault for not preparing.

Everyone should take preparation on how to defend ones self, in my opinion.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Wade  
#155 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 3:11:58 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,656
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 563
Applause Received: 589

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Wow, flying is a right? You're a citizen, not the king. That's one helluva high horse you're riding there. Yes, I am laughing while typing this. I just can't believe the audacity in such thoughts.

It's people who hold that similar thought about driving that are the worst drivers. This road is my RIGHT to drive because I paid taxes. No, poop you, it's not your road, its not your right, its a privilege and should be appreciated as such.

I don't remember reading anything about flying in the Bill of Rights, then again, there weren't enough pictures in it to keep my attention.

You don't HAVE to travel. You can find new employment that doesn't require travel. You chose your career.

I want to drive a Lamborghini Diablo SV. There are several professions I'm qualified for that I could satisfy that want. I chose to be a software programmer and father instead.



I'm not a fan of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration team and especially less a fan with it being funded from tax payers money. I think they should lighten up and be funded by each airline. Although, then flights would cost more. I think they provide a false sense of security to some degree.

There has to be some security measures taken prior to boarding a plane. We all absorb the cost via taxes or those of us who fly absorb higher flight costs.


Sigh.

You missed the point. Travel is the right. Given that travel ia a right, the burden of proof is on the king who would say a particular exercise of that right can be limited.

The problem with your analogy to rotten drivers is that said rotten drivers directly interfere with others being able to travel. The existence of "my" right" doesn't give me moral authority for interfering with another right that also exists.

Indeed, the most usual way of gaining moral authority for infringing on right A is by finding some other right B that trumps it.

So, for example, one might argue (I wouldn't, but clearly many others here would) that one person's "right to feel safe while travelling" trumps another person's "right to travel freely". But the argument must be made.

Were travel merely a privilege, however, there would be no need to find a reason for saying no to a particular kind of travel. All that is required is the grantor of the privilege ("the king" in your metaphor) saying no.

If using a road is a "privilege" only, who is the grantor of the privilege. If the answer is "the owner of the road (i.e. the "king" or "state" in most cases), then what is the basis for the owner's authority?

Another argument (which doesn't go to the rights/privilege question): If we stay with a auto-on-road analogy, the comparison is not who can operate a car on the road and when. It's who can ride as a passenger in a car on the road and when. Banning texting while driving (which Iowa just did) is different than banning texting while being a passenger. Isn't it?

I have no problem with lots of restrictions that have been placed on my rights. I don't mind people saying the right to use the roads doesn't extend to being able to drive at speeds of 150 or under the influence of a fifth of bourbon. I don't mind parking tickets, or street lights, or stop signs. (Though I do think an awful lot of four way stops in my neck of the woods ought to be replaced with street lights.)

But I am really bothered by the "it's a privilege" argument. I don't believe "kings" (or their modern successor, "elected officials" acting on the majority's will) have moral authority for granting privilege anywhere near as often as people seem willing to accept.

"You don't have to travel." That is exactly the argument used to justify serfdom. Its not about "having to"; its about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I may not have to travel. I don't have to speak. I don't have to worship God. I don't have to assemble. I don't have to have a gun. But I still have those rights.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Formo  
#156 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 3:27:34 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Yeah.. ZS said that traveling is a right.. not flying.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#157 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 8:18:47 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Sigh.

You missed the point. Travel is the right. Given that travel ia a right, the burden of proof is on the king who would say a particular exercise of that right can be limited.


Yeah, I'm the one missing the point, sure.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Cheesey  
#158 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 9:02:24 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 8,552
Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 159
Applause Received: 326

Were we EVER truely "free?"
The government takes a HUGE part of our income. Takes a big part when we buy anything.
Yes, we have MORE "freedom" then alot of countries. But we arn't "free" if you ask me.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#159 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 9:32:53 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,605
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 353
Applause Received: 937

I would argue you are free to fly if you wish to.. buy your own plane, learn how to fly it and obey the laws of the FAA. Then set your own rules to board the freaking plane..

But traveling commercially it is a privilege at best.. the only right you have it the ownership of the rights to the seat for the flight.

You are flying in their aircraft, at their time, for their set level of compensation.

Under a free society, I will concede that it is your right to be able to fairly purchase that seat equally, but buying that seat doesn't not constitute a right to do as you please.

Their flight, their license to operate.. their rules to promote safety.

That does not define a right.

Side note.. I find it humorous that it is a right to be able to fly, but some of the same people argued that equally obtainable health care is not a right.. talk about losing touch with reality.
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#160 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 9:46:08 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Under a free society, I will concede that it is your right to be able to fairly purchase that seat equally, but buying that seat doesn't not constitute a right to do as you please.


That's how I feel.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Pack93z  
#161 Posted : Friday, July 16, 2010 9:49:44 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,605
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 353
Applause Received: 937

On the TSA agent.. is required to be same sex.. so Zombie.. I would have pressed the issue with the TSA.. normal screening is not a extraordinary situation.

http://www.tsa.gov/trave...tant/editorial_1049.shtm

Quote:
Except in extraordinary circumstances, a screener of your gender will conduct your additional screening. You may request that your search be conducted in private.
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#162 Posted : Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:18:27 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I would argue you are free to fly if you wish to.. buy your own plane, learn how to fly it and obey the laws of the FAA. Then set your own rules to board the freaking plane..

But traveling commercially it is a privilege at best.. the only right you have it the ownership of the rights to the seat for the flight.

You are flying in their aircraft, at their time, for their set level of compensation.

Under a free society, I will concede that it is your right to be able to fairly purchase that seat equally, but buying that seat doesn't not constitute a right to do as you please.

Their flight, their license to operate.. their rules to promote safety.

That does not define a right.

Side note.. I find it humorous that it is a right to be able to fly, but some of the same people argued that equally obtainable health care is not a right.. talk about losing touch with reality.


You guys are reading what was originally written wrong. He said TRAVEL is a right.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#163 Posted : Saturday, July 17, 2010 3:25:16 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

I don't believe we are. I did at first and realized it after I made my reply. However, that doesn't change the point of my words.

He says Travel is a right. I'd agree in the context that we are free to relocate as we wish.

He did not specifically say flying was a right, that was something I mistook.

Hopefully now that I've specifically stated as such we can move past that.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Wade  
#164 Posted : Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:28:04 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,656
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 563
Applause Received: 589

Quote:
BY DAVID OVALLE

DOVALLE@MIAMIHERALD.COM

A Miami International Airport federal security screener has been arrested for allegedly using an expandable police baton to beat up a co-worker.
The source of their conflict, police say: daily ribbing about the size of the screener's genitalia.
Screener Rolando Negrin's private body parts were observed by his Transportation Security Administration colleagues conducting training on the airport's full-body imaging machines.
Months of joking culminated on Tuesday night, when Negrin attacked co-worker Hugo Osorno in an employee parking lot, according to an arrest report.
Negrin ``stated he could not take the jokes any more and lost his mind,'' said the report, made public Thursday.
The agitated screener forced Osorno to his knees and made him apologize before whacking him on the back and arms with the baton, according to the report.
Negrin, who posted $7,500 bond on Wednesday night, is charged with aggravated battery.
Federal officials began using full-body scanning machines at airports across the nation in 2008, touting them as a high-tech, effective way to screen passengers for weapons or dangerous materials.
Screeners in a separate room view images of the human body, private parts and all, with the person's face blurred. The machines have raised concerns from the American Civil Liberties Union, which says they represent an invasion of passengers' privacy.
Florida ACLU Director Howard Simon said he frowns on the ``electronic strip search'' and called on the government to use less invasive security technology.
``Ribbing and fighting among TSA workers -- it's a sad story. It's an unnecessary story,'' Simon said Thursday. ``The government is being seduced by new technology.''
TSA spokesman Jonathan Allen, in a statement issued Thursday, said that Negrin is being suspended and an internal inquiry is being launched.
``TSA has a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence,'' he said. ``We are investigating to determine whether training procedures were violated and will take appropriate action as necessary.''


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010...ts-co.html#ixzz0u324b2cc
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#165 Posted : Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:42:48 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

In some email I have a picture of a TSA employee playing Solitaire while there's a nice line waiting.


I don't see how that fits in though as every job has douche bag employees. You can't even trust your priest nowadays so I'm not sure why a government employee's work ethic is a surprise or note worthy.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
13 Pages«<910111213>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.400 seconds.