Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 08:49:29 -0800
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;  s=s1024; d=rogers.com;  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;  b=W07CJ1WLBn8zvk6QFJt57/XfHgQaGabCpumOXwdldGMBJ8TPHNfrdewk5a2hG3s6WGliUR1XpNch96ONpolwe7JVl6KFyZ6z0zqTU+MRvw3m9bBysBa6Fi9HwkFziWezwpIs+mOlGmDNvc6zEHadBLawPPHUFvvvMZNdUJdxomE=;
Message-ID: <515960.65289.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <885332.19254.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <AANLkTi=9yXsO3VkRdhr3qDxvgv3xndDFJovLA=jEJgpL@mail.gmail.com> <810610.45148.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <AANLkTimbNS=PmTW6utS98tuAQMM+3EoHu-pcbj3FU2EK@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikToRo2d+QBC7tmH5y=pLF8Z3Se1tck+RvjuMmJ@mail.gmail.com> <318531.78321.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <AANLkTi=14gvZaD12uufj2=LScrd2JzzieRarExdX1LDp@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 08:47:08 -0800 (PST)
From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=14gvZaD12uufj2=LScrd2JzzieRarExdX1LDp@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1078
Lines: 35

>
>I dont think there is really such a thing as an inalienable right. it is just a 

>custom {tcaci} that dictates such a right, and a custom could be regarded as a 
>type of rule.

But we are not discussing your beliefs here:)  We are discussing the appropriate 

lojban word for 'inalienable rights' whose definition precludes their being 
granted 

by anybody, and whose definition is broadly accepted by society.  We should be 
able to have this discussion in lojban, so it would be useful to have a lujvo 
for 'inalienable rights'.
>
>e.g. "human rights": {loi se jvazi'e be fi lo tcaci be loi remna prami} (zo'o) 
>-or- {fi lo tcacti fo lo remna prami}
>
>also: u'u I was missing the x3 place in my previous def. rectified:
>
>ko'a jvazi'e ko'e ko'i ko'o .ijo ko'a zifre ko'e tu'a ko'i poi javni ko'e ko'o
>
>In inalienable right is not really inalienable in the logical sense of the word. 
>
>Your inalienable rights can be witheld from you. e.g. by terrorists

The fact of somone trying to deny me my inalienable rights does not mean that 
they 

don't exist.

totus