"Human Rights" --European Court

[eFestivals]

So it isn't subject to that person's right and wrong at all. Justice is simply the fair and equal application of their, or anyone's, sense of right and wrong. Because if it isn't applied fairly and equally then it is an unjust application of right and wrong.

This is f**king retarded! You can't have both Neil.

What are you finding so hard to understand?

A person has a subjective notion of right and wrong. That sense of right and wrong is fixed at any moment in time (so from that, it is unchanging for this scenario).

As you say, if that sense of right and wrong is not applied fairly and equally then it is unjust - which means it cannot be justice (the clues is in the word 'unjust' ).

That means that that subjective notion of right and wrong has to be applied by that individual in a particular manner - where they would apply the justice to themselves in the same way as they would to others. This means that their use of their notion of right and wrong is universal within their notion of justice; their subjective notion of justice is universally applied to all people.

Got it? It sounds confusing but it's really not to anyone with more than a few brain cells.

[eFestivals]

An individual applying their subjectivity universally doesnt make it universal.

it depends where you're looking at things from.

If you're the person applying your subjective notion of right and wrong equally and fairly to all people, then it's very definitely the case that you're applying your subjectivity in a universal manner.

C'mon .... have you and others been on the stupid pills?

[worm]

A person has a subjective notion of right and wrong. That sense of right and wrong is fixed at any moment in time (so from that, it is unchanging for this scenario).

[worm]

it depends where you're looking at things from.

If you're the person applying your subjective notion of right and wrong equally and fairly to all people, then it's very definitely the case that you're applying your subjectivity in a universal manner.

[eFestivals]

That's not evidence of it being universal Neil. It's evidence of subjectivity being applied universally, which as Phil correctly pointed out does not make it universal.

"universal" does not mean *just* "applied to everything by everyone", it can also mean "applied to everything by someone".

You've been at the moron's dictionary again. For someone who claims to be so well read, you understand nothing of what you read.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universal

[worm]

"universal" does not mean *just* "applied to everything by everyone", it can also mean "applied to everything by someone".

Edited February 22, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

That's irrelevant.

Yep, it is to you, who makes up utter bollocks to 'prove' himself right on every occasion.

What I said was literally correct. What you said was literally incorrect.

Get over it.

[worm]

What I said was literally correct.

[eFestivals]

You said that universal can mean ''applied to everything by someone''

And it can.

What I said was literally correct. What you said was literally incorrect.

Get over it.

[worm]

What I said was literally correct.

Edited February 22, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

which means that subjectivity is ''applied universally'' as I said.

You mean: that's what *I* said.

So your point is irrelevant.

given that you've just agreed with what I've been saying thru-out (but you've only recently changed to saying), any irrelevance here is yours and not mine.

It's not saying that what is applied is universal, it's saying that the application is universal.

f**k me, you've got the literal skills of a moron, not a graduate.

"applied" and "application" are the same thing in different forums. "applied is univeral" and "application is universal" - cspoy the difference?

That doesn't make subjectivity universal,

I've not said anything like this.

just the application of it.

And I have said this.

f**k me, you're stupid.

[eFestivals]

That part was literally correct, but completely irrelevant because it was confirming that subjectivity can be universally applied just as I said.

Which I said first - at which point you were saying I was wrong.

Because you're a moron, with extremely limited literary skills - you keep proving it so.

What was literally incorrect on your part was to take this to mean that subjectivity can be universal

I never said any such thing.

If you really think I did, then that's because you're a moron, with extremely limited literary skills - you keep proving it so.

[worm]

You mean: that's what *I* said.

[eFestivals]

To which you said

.... something 100% literally accurate.

Which you're trying to tell me was wrong. Because you're a moron.

[worm]

.... something 100% literally accurate.

Edited February 22, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Yet completely irrelevant as it does not contradict Phil's point whatsoever.

And you thinking that I have to be trying to contradict Phil or anyone else is no less irrelevant.

I've said what I've said. What I've said is 100% accurate in literal terms.

If you or anyone else want to tell me I'm wrong with that - because I'm very definitely not - then that only reveals something about you, and nothing about me.

No I'm not. Not once have I said that this was wrong. I said that it was irrelevant, as Phil was saying that this doesn't mean that the thing being applied is universal.

The thing being applied *IS* being applied universally.

If you or anyone else want to tell me I'm wrong with that - because I'm very definitely not - then that only reveals something about you, and nothing about me.

What I've said is illiterate

Yep, that's normally the case.

Edited February 22, 2011 by eFestivals

[gratedenini]

I think den's point is that this person came into the country illegally, didn't respect our laws, so shouldn't be protected by our laws as they shouldn't apply to him. And he shouldn't be considered part of our society.

Lots of people born here don't respect our laws though, and we don't deport them. Though we do usually exclude them from society for a while.

[eFestivals]

I take offence that you haven`t added one of your much-used smilies at the end there Spangle. The fact you haven`t indicates you are serious. The thought of the likes of ME becoming a member of the Liberal party is the equivalent of having a wife/girlfriend with a fanny like Sooty and Sweeps frying pan. Please edit.

I was being serious.

I wasn't referring to the LibDems, but another party who has a leader with the name of Nick.

[gratedenini]

I was being serious.

I wasn't referring to the LibDems, but another party who has a leader with the name of Nick.

[eFestivals]

You are way out of order by even suggesting such a reference.

There are two certainties --that everyone has an arse and everyone speaks an opinion from their mouths. And as per usual-- yours are the wrong way round.

If you hadn`t removed yourself from the +1-1 system because it cant accept triple figures.. I would ceratinly have given you a -1 Aesop.

So I will give you a simple hand-made one :

-1

den

If you can read properly - but can you? - you'll see that someone said they believed your view to be a particular way. I responded to that by pointing out it was the same view as held by the BNP, because it is.

Whether what that person said was your view is actually your view, I don't know. But if you have a problem with what he said, take that up with him and not me; I didn't say it was your view. I did say that I wasn't saying you were racist, but I was pointing out that that view is one held by the BNP.

I've done f**k all wrong with any of that.

As for the rest of your twaddle, that's just your paranoia. If you wish it to over-rule any sense you might have, that's your problem and not mine.

[gratedenini]

If you can read properly - but can you? - you'll see that someone said they believed your view to be a particular way. I responded to that by pointing out it was the same view as held by the BNP, because it is.

Whether what that person said was your view is actually your view, I don't know. But if you have a problem with what he said, take that up with him and not me; I didn't say it was your view. I did say that I wasn't saying you were racist, but I was pointing out that that view is one held by the BNP.

I've done f**k all wrong with any of that.

As for the rest of your twaddle, that's just your paranoia. If you wish it to over-rule any sense you might have, that's your problem and not mine.

[eFestivals]

I accept you apology

That's pretty clever, seeing you've not got an apology because I've nothing to apologise for.

How's about you giving me an apology for your constant misplaced fantasies about what you think I've said but haven't?

f**k me, there's more sense to be had from those who are hallucinating than there is from some of the people round here. The hallucinating have fantasies nearer to the truth.

[diddly-dee]

Who`s that then? MMT I suppose... but like I say.. I left the thread and maybe I`m guilty of skipping though it and not getting the full story..but I`ve got a bit of Lamb marinating see and I dont really have the time today to go through Aesop v Confuscious-- A Dissertation too Far Vol. 22.

BUT--as a few smilies are scattered about your reply, I accept you apology although I am not at this stage rescinding the -1

until Diddly-Dee indicates its validity.

I would normally ask Wormald... but I`m not quite sure if I would be able to comprehend his response.

Anyway... back to The Efest Court of Human Rights.....

den

[gratedenini]

That's pretty clever, seeing you've not got an apology because I've nothing to apologise for.

How's about you giving me an apology for your constant misplaced fantasies about what you think I've said but haven't?

f**k me, there's more sense to be had from those who are hallucinating than there is from some of the people round here. The hallucinating have fantasies nearer to the truth.

[eFestivals]

My dear Aesop, if I am indeed the only one who has not a clue about what you are on about-- I will apologise.... but I dont think though that is the case, for you are very similar to me in that I can be guilty of posting utter tripe. The major difference though is whilst I admit it --you actually believe all yours..whereas mine is merely forum banter!

The public shall decide! And when they do... you will still say they dont know what they are talking about and ban them!

den

I pointed out that a view it was suggested that you had is also a view that the BNP has. I did nothing more than that.

You said in response to that "You are way out of order by even suggesting such a reference.".

Why am I out of order Den? Why it out of order for me to state that fact?

If you think it's out of order for any person to reference any fact that's of relevance to the discussion, then these forums are not for you.

If you're unable to follow such simple referencing, these forums are not for you.

If what you're doing in this post with the tripe you've waffled above is what you are calling "merely forum banter", then these forums are not for you.

And if you still don't know what I'm talking about then these forums are not for you.

Time to come clean Den. Is there a brain rattling around in your head, or not?