Actually, the word is "unalienable."
reg
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: cigs & figs
> - in respect of the up-coming U.S. holiday -
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:49:47 GMT, mackeral@remove~this~first~yahoo.com
> (J. Williams) wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:37:48 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >What rights are denied to smokers?
> JW >
> > Many smokers, including my late mother, feel being unable to smoke on
> > a commerical aircraft, sit anywhere in a restaurant, etc. were
> > violation of her "rights." I don't agree as a non-smoker, but that
> > was her viewpoint until the day she died.
>
> What's your point: She was a crabby old lady, whining (or
> whinging) about fancied 'rights'?
>
> You don't introduce anything that seems "inalienable" or
> "self-evident" (if I may introduce July-4th language).
> Nobody stopped her from smoking as long as she kept it away
> from other people-who-would-be-offended.
>
> Okay, we form governments to help assure each other of rights.
> Lately, the law sees fit to stop some assaults from happening,
> even though it did not always do that in the past. - the offender
> still has quite a bit of leeway; if you don't cause fatal diseases,
> you legally can offend quite a lot. We finally have laws about
> smoking.
>
> But she wants the law to stop at HER convenience?
>
> [ snip, various ]
> JW >
> > Talking about confused and/or politically driven, what do Scalia and
> > Thomas have to do with smoking rights? Please cite the case law.
>
> I mention "rights" because that did seem to be a attitude you
> mentioned that was (as you see) provocative to me.
>
> I toss in S & T, because I think that, to a large extent, they
> share your mother's preference for a casual, self-centered
> definition of rights. And they are Supreme Court justices.
> [ Well, they don't say, "This is what *I* want".... these two
> translate the blame/ credit to Nature (euphemism for God).]
>
> So: I don't fault your mother *too* harshly, when Justices
> hardly do better. Even though a prolonged skew was needed,
> to end up with two like this.
>
>
> --
> Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
>
>
> =================================================================
> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
> =================================================================
>
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
