[henry quirk]

Dana: My first post was fucking with you. My second was a genuine attempt to discuss the question.

Thanks for admittin' that. I'll address your 'genuine attempt' down-post.

#

clod: I should have the ability to get a restraining order on my emotional abuser.

No. You have the ability to end abuse (emotional, physical) right now. You just won't take the bull by the balls and 'do' it. As you like.

#

glatt: Henry, you think the world is black and white and every person who points out a shade of gray is a nitpicker.

Nope.

#

Flint: you do need some (laws/regs).

Yeah, I know.

I've said the same, more than once ('sensible, minimal': ring a bell?)

##

Genuine attempts: I was pretty hot when I signed off. 'Hot' cuz I was certain I was bein' fucked with. I chilled and realized I wasn't bein' fucked with. Dana's comment about her genuine attempt concreted that realization. You folks are't nit pickin'.

No, things are much worse.

See, when someone asks me a question, I just answer. I don't ask for defintions or clarifications cuz I figure if the questioner has narrow definitions he'll incorporate them into the question.

What I expected when I asked Does an individual have a right to his life, his liberty, his property? were for folks to just tell me what they thought. I expected some to say 'yes', some to say 'no', and some to drone on. Instead I got folks clarifying to me, assuming what I meant, and bein' clever tryin' to trip me up.

Not one actual answer, not one actual 'this is what I think'.

You're all intelligent, well-read, educated folks. Unfortunately you're all also 'consequentialists'. When it comes to 'life, liberty, property' you have no moral principle. Rights, except as legal matters, don't exist for you. It's all 'utilitarianism' to you.

So: no, we have no common ground, no commonality.