(Dec 13, 2016 08:34 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 13, 2016 08:24 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 13, 2016 08:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]entitled - believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment
privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people
Entitlements are something granted externally. So saying you are entitled to your opinions presupposes others grant them some degree of legitimacy. There's a difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You do have a right to have your own opinions, but you are not entitled to have those opinions legitimized, acknowledged, affirmed, or respected by others.
entitlement
NOUN
1 [noun] The fact of having a right to something:
‘full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered’
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ntitlement
Is that supposed to refute something? Look at that usage example. Who is entitled, and who provides the "fees and maintenance"? Entitlement entails obligation, where rights do not. Entitlement is a positive right, while true rights are negative rights. Negative rights do not obligate anyone else, so they do not violate anyone's rights. Positive rights must violate someone's right to make them provide another's entitlement.
No..the dictionary is right. Entitlements are the same thing as rights. Rights are granted externally too, by law and by the constitution. They are also granted by culture and society. And no, entitlement doesn't necessarily entail obligation. There are entitlements based on birthright, class, income level, education level, gender, lifestyle, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and race. That's the unfortunate nature of our society. There are rights and entitlements granted by the system without any merit or obligation whatsoever.
(Dec 13, 2016 08:37 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]No..the dictionary is right. Entitlements are the same thing as rights. Rights are granted externally too, by law and by the constitution. And no, entitlement doesn't necessarily entail obligation. You're just making shit up now.
Just go look up the difference between positive and negative rights. The constitution largely
protects negative rights, instead of granting positive ones. Negative rights cannot be granted, because they do not require any action from someone else. Positive rights can only be granted, because they must rely on the actions of someone else.
It's pretty simple. Look it up.
(Dec 13, 2016 08:43 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 13, 2016 08:37 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]No..the dictionary is right. Entitlements are the same thing as rights. Rights are granted externally too, by law and by the constitution. And no, entitlement doesn't necessarily entail obligation. You're just making shit up now.
Just go look up the difference between positive and negative rights. The constitution largely protects negative rights, instead of granting positive ones. Negative rights cannot be granted, because they do not require any action from someone else. Positive rights can only be granted, because they must rely on the actions of someone else.
It's pretty simple. Look it up.
An entitlement is still a right. There's no way around this. It's right there in the dictionary.
(Dec 13, 2016 08:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]All the professor is saying is nobody else is obligated to take those opinions seriously. I can't fathom where you're getting this notion that anyone says you can't have an opinion. Where are you reading that?
In the subject line, where it says "You're not entitled to your opinion". Spoken in front of a classroom, I expect that the students would interpret that as "keep your fucking mouths shut".
Quote:Entitlements are something granted externally.
Certainly a free society has the obligation not to interfere with people's innate ability to think for themselves.
Quote:So saying you are entitled to your opinions presupposes others grant them some degree of legitimacy.
No, it just means that A mustn't prevent B from thinking for him/herself and from forming his/her own opinions. If A were somehow obligated to agree with B's opinions, then A's freedom of thought would be infringed. So my formulation flows from the logic of the situation.
Quote:There's a difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You do have a right to have your own opinions, but you are not entitled to have those opinions legitimized, acknowledged, affirmed, or respected by others.
I'm not sure that distinction can be made quite so cleanly. By their nature, rights imply obligations (otherwise they would just be abilities). If I have a right to something, such as free speech or the right of free assembly, then relevant others (the government say) are obligated not to deprive me of those rights. But the right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to believe what I say, it merely requires that I be allowed to say it. I think that the right of free-thought, to form one's own opinions, is even more fundamental and important to any society in which I'd want to live.
(Dec 13, 2016 08:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Do you ever post anything but personal attacks anymore?
That was good one. Admit it.
Syne Wrote:Do you understand the difference between a right and an entitlement?
Of course, but that would take it in a different direction.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcr...35_win.pdf
It seems to me that her complaint is in regards to coercion, which is a little tough to cry nowadays with the avenues of dissemination being so plentiful.
Yazata is right, though.
(Dec 13, 2016 09:17 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Certainly a free society has the obligation not to interfere with people's innate ability to think for themselves.
I like what Milton Friedman said, when he said that we must strive to keep all channels open, and if we do that then it’s very tempting for individuals to say that I want to be free of that. Freedom imposes costs as well as benefits. If you have to make up your own mind, that’s a terrible thing. Most people would much prefer to have their mind up for them, but if we’re going to maintain a free society, each of us have to undertake the task of making up our own mind.
Coercion vs. Persuasion
As far as this forum is concerned, you’re not losing your right to argue or persuade anyone. You just suck at it.
I’m not judgin'…I’m just sayin'
(Dec 13, 2016 09:17 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 13, 2016 08:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]All the professor is saying is nobody else is obligated to take those opinions seriously. I can't fathom where you're getting this notion that anyone says you can't have an opinion. Where are you reading that?
In the subject line, where it says "You're not entitled to your opinion". Spoken in front of a classroom, I expect that the students would interpret that as "keep your fucking mouths shut".
Quote:Entitlements are something granted externally.
Certainly a free society has the obligation not to interfere with people's innate ability to think for themselves.
Quote:So saying you are entitled to your opinions presupposes others grant them some degree of legitimacy.
No, it just means that A mustn't prevent B from thinking for him/herself and from forming his/her own opinions. If A were somehow obligated to agree with B's opinions, then A's freedom of thought would be infringed. So my formulation flows from the logic of the situation.
Quote:There's a difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You do have a right to have your own opinions, but you are not entitled to have those opinions legitimized, acknowledged, affirmed, or respected by others.
I'm not sure that distinction can be made quite so cleanly. By their nature, rights imply obligations (otherwise they would just be abilities). If I have a right to something, such as free speech or the right of free assembly, then relevant others (the government say) are obligated not to deprive me of those rights. But the right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to believe what I say, it merely requires that I be allowed to say it. I think that the right of free-thought, to form one's own opinions, is even more fundamental and important to any society in which I'd want to live.
Did you actually read either of the articles?
(Dec 13, 2016 11:29 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Yazata is right, though.
(Dec 13, 2016 09:17 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Certainly a free society has the obligation not to interfere with people's innate ability to think for themselves.
I like what Milton Friedman said, when he said that we must strive to keep all channels open, and if we do that then it’s very tempting for individuals to say that I want to be free of that. Freedom imposes costs as well as benefits. If you have to make up your own mind, that’s a terrible thing. Most people would much prefer to have their mind up for them, but if we’re going to maintain a free society, each of us have to undertake the task of making up our own mind.
No one, this article included, ever said people shouldn't think for themselves. Did you read either article?
Quote:As far as this forum is concerned, you’re not losing your right to argue or persuade anyone. You just suck at it.
I’m not judgin'…I’m just sayin'
I never said I was losing any right at all. What a strawman.
(Dec 14, 2016 01:30 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No one, this article included, ever said people shouldn't think for themselves. Did you read either article?
I did. Did you?
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not...inion-9978
"On Monday, the ABC’s Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from – you guessed it – Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was "accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups." But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called "debate" here is about the science itself, and the “choice groups” simply don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.
Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: 'there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust," and it’s not part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise."
I agree with him, and there was absolutely no coercion involved, but thinking for yourself wasn’t the only point that Friedman was trying to make.
"We must strive to keep all channels open, and if we do that then it’s very tempting for individuals to say that I want to be free of that."
His point was spot on. Maybe you should listen to the video.
Coercion vs. Persuasion
obligation - an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound
An obligation to not do something does not oblige any act or course of action. That's the difference between positive and negative rights.
Why on earth is anyone arguing the strawman that anyone said you shouldn't think for yourself or could not have your own opinions? That certainly wasn't in either article.
Syne Wrote:Why on earth is anyone arguing the strawman that anyone said you shouldn't think for yourself or could not have your own opinions? That certainly wasn't in either article.
Because you said this...
Syne Wrote:This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful".
I don't think anyone thinks that other than the person espousing them.
It’s how you’re arguing that's disrespectful. You’re like a male version of Bells.
(Dec 14, 2016 02:47 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Syne Wrote:Why on earth is anyone arguing the strawman that anyone said you shouldn't think for yourself or could not have your own opinions? That certainly wasn't in either article.
Because you said this...
Syne Wrote:This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful".
I don't think anyone thinks that other than the person espousing them.
It’s how you’re arguing that's disrespectful. You’re like a male version of Bells.
Yet you, among others, often defend your opinion with nothing more than how you subjectively feel. And then you get upset when I don't accept that as justification. Yes, after you've resorted to ad hominems, I do disrespect those who have disrespected me. But no doubt, you'll never go look to see that pattern.