For fear of trying to encapsulate (and thus limiting) such a singular moment in my life, I'll just say that I have just had three of the most incredible and beautiful days of my entire life...which is strange considering that this was someone else's wedding. A weekend of witnessing and experiencing such immense joy and awe that I have been reduced to tears and rendered speechless (except, of course, for this little post).
omg.
10 comments:
Need more info. Did you hookup w/ a bridesmaid?
DA
you're such a girl. grow a pair.
but i'm happy for aarti and nik (i assume that's who you're talking about...)
DA: It depends on whether your mother is considered a bridesmaid.
MH: I repeat. Suck it.
I looked at Obama's speech this weekend. So help me, I really trying to understand the man, and his philosphy. But here is one of my major stumbling blocks:
In Obama's world, I'm to give part of my income because other people need it. But I don't understand why a need for something translates into right to it.
Look at it this way, awhile ago, you and I talked about building a bookshelf. Let's say we did it. I already had a bookshelf, but I wanted another. So, we worked on the bookshelf, buying the wood, building the shelves, sanding it, and so on.
But let's say that the family next door really needed a bookshelf. Under this need translating into right equation, since I already have a bookshelf, and they needed one, do they have a higher claim because they need it. And why must I give it to them? I built it with my own two hands, and made it with the sweat of my own brow.
I'll likely never agree with it, but I'd like to understand the logical underpinnings of this philosophy. Why does need for something translate into a right to it?
RS
P.S. Further, who gets to decide what a "need" is?
P.P.S. MH is right, grow a pair.
I find the question uninteresting and framed with unhelpful simplicity. Plus it sets up some sort of structure where there is some underlying position using the concept "rights" that I think you use only because it strengthens your case, not because anyone actually believes it.
I think you're setting up a straw man. I'm not going to bother to support it.
Actually, I wasn't. I was just trying to frame the question in as simple of terms as possible. Redefine rights if you so desire. Or don't.
That's fair, I was grumpy when I wrote that...sorry about that. I think I'm getting testy because I'm finding the disconnect between everything I feel like I believe about this world and your ideas to be almost too far apart to engage in reasonable discussion.
In this case, I guess I don't feel like the concept of moral rights and duties are all that useful. If you want to boil it down to its simplest level, I think that human suffering and life trumps philosophical claims over property rights.
If you want to draw that out to its extreme conclusion, watching someone starve to death while withholding food that you possess in a million times in excess of abundance merely because your labor or capital led to its creation is a theory that I find entirely unreasonable. If it's unclear to you why, I'm not sure I can help you.
i like this "rs" character.
and i'm going to avoid the obvious, inappropriate, awkward response to your comment.
I'd like to ask the Initials to not gang up on me. I would find it more amusing if you all started attacking each other.
it was magical! best time of my life!
Post a Comment