VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #51  
Old 09-11-2006, 04:53 AM
admin admin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 78
Default Please read the posting rules.

Morning all,

I think I've been lenient and shown restraint on several of the posts in this thread - posts that really shouldn't have been posted. Some, while not RV-related, were wonderfully informative and a pleasure to read. Having said that, many of them are 'over the line' and I'm going to have to start removing posts if the rules aren't followed more closely.

Discussions of the Constitution, illegal aliens, religions are not appropriate on this board.

Please understand I don't enjoy being the bad cop. Just make sure you've seen the rules (specifically the part about what is 'over the line').

Best,
Doug (owner)
__________________
Doug Reeves
Editor: www.VansAirForce.net
Owner: Delta Romeo, LLC.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-11-2006, 05:19 AM
fodrv7's Avatar
fodrv7 fodrv7 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Torquay, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 826
Default Well considered restraint.

Looking in from the outside, I have found this discussion, though not strictly RV related, mature and unbelievably well informed.
DR. You have my respect and admiration for standing in the wings and letting it run and only stepping in as an absolute last resort.
We all love RVs and aviation, but demonstrably, that is not the sole connection. I am always amazed how many other interests we share.
In this case I have huge admiration for the knowledge displayed on this particular post in such a non-partisan way, by what is in reality such a disparate bunch of blokes.
I would like to join the discussion, but think it would be prudent, as an Aussie, to leave it until I join you for a beer in the bar somewhere, someday.
Pete.
PS. Doug, it?s not morning. It?s 2122hrs; whilst I watch Ironflight?s colleagues.
P
__________________
Peter James.
Australia Down Under.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-11-2006, 12:37 PM
David Johnson David Johnson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 149
Default

Doug-

As a great credit to the restaint and character of the people on this board, I believe that all of the discussion in this thread has been absolutely relevant to aviation and that all involved have acted responsibly by not attacking anyone else, but rather calmly and rationally sharing various viewpoints. I've learned a lot, and I would very humbly ask that you consider allowing it to continue so long as it gets neither emotional or agressive toward any particular person or point of view.

Cheers,
Dave
__________________
Dave Johnson
48V, Erie, CO
Cessna 182 owner
RV7A in progress
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-11-2006, 12:45 PM
admin admin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 78
Default

I agree with you completely, Dave. There was one post which I thought crossed the line...and I deleted it. I've throroughly enjoyed the discussion, and as long as it can be tied to aviation in some way, look forward to its continuation.

b,
d
__________________
Doug Reeves
Editor: www.VansAirForce.net
Owner: Delta Romeo, LLC.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-11-2006, 01:08 PM
David Johnson David Johnson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 149
Default

Wonderful, Doug. Thank you. It's a breath of fresh air to be able to have reasoned dialog as it relates to aviation and politics together without being attacked or watching others be attacked for a given point of view. Thanks for taking the position on it that you have.

Dave
__________________
Dave Johnson
48V, Erie, CO
Cessna 182 owner
RV7A in progress
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-11-2006, 01:38 PM
prkaye prkaye is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,117
Default

Reading through this discussion, I can't help but wondering what the disagreement is. The first thing to do in any debate is to clearly define the terms you are using. Many, many arguments occur between people who do not disagree on anything fundamentally; they are just using terms in a different sense.

I can't see any consistent way in which "right" can be defined differently from "privelage", and so to me the entire debate has been vacuous.

We live in a civilization/society (for the purpose here, let's define "society" as a group of people living in a common geographical area, organizing themselves by mutually agreed customs, laws and patterns of behaviour). By necessity, a society places restrictions on what its members can and cannot do (laws). Without such restrictions, you would have anarcy, which by definition is antonymous with "civilization". A "right" or "privelage" is something which society allows a given member to do (i.e. that which is not prohibited by a law). So how does a right differ from a privelage?

You might want to define "right" as something that EVERY member of society is allowed to do without society's deliberate restriction. But if that is the definition of "right", then (at least in the U.S. where capitol punishment exists) there is no such thing as a "right". The state can even take away the right to breathe from some members (those conviceted of a capital crime).

So, if you want to argue about whether flying is a "right" or a "privelage", first you have to clearly and unambiguosly define what you mean by the terms "right" and "privelage". The definitions of "right" and "privelage" should have a clear distinction if there is to be any argument. Then we just see which definition applies to the activity of flying!
__________________
Phil
RV9A (SB)
Flying since July 2010!
Ottawa, Canada
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-11-2006, 02:29 PM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prkaye
Reading through this discussion, I can't help but wondering what the disagreement is. The first thing to do in any debate is to clearly define the terms you are using. Many, many arguments occur between people who do not disagree on anything fundamentally; they are just using terms in a different sense.

I can't see any consistent way in which "right" can be defined differently from "privelage", and so to me the entire debate has been vacuous.

We live in a civilization/society (for the purpose here, let's define "society" as a group of people living in a common geographical area, organizing themselves by mutually agreed customs, laws and patterns of behaviour). By necessity, a society places restrictions on what its members can and cannot do (laws). Without such restrictions, you would have anarcy, which by definition is antonymous with "civilization". A "right" or "privelage" is something which society allows a given member to do (i.e. that which is not prohibited by a law). So how does a right differ from a privelage?

You might want to define "right" as something that EVERY member of society is allowed to do without society's deliberate restriction. But if that is the definition of "right", then (at least in the U.S. where capitol punishment exists) there is no such thing as a "right". The state can even take away the right to breathe from some members (those conviceted of a capital crime).

So, if you want to argue about whether flying is a "right" or a "privelage", first you have to clearly and unambiguosly define what you mean by the terms "right" and "privelage". The definitions of "right" and "privelage" should have a clear distinction if there is to be any argument. Then we just see which definition applies to the activity of flying!
Actually, I thought Gary Sobek provided a good definition for the terms that were originally being debated. Below were his links to definitions of right and privilege. I thought they were very distinct in their definitive definition of the two words. IMO these two definitions adequately defined the terms well. Phil, are you now saying that something is amiss with these terms as defined by the example definitions that were given?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV6_flyer
Right = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Right&x=0&y=0

Privilege = http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...lege&x=25&y=15

My United States of America Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Adminstration license says: "... has been found to be properly qualified to exercise the privileges of ..."
__________________
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A
https://rvwings.com

Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-11-2006, 02:48 PM
prkaye prkaye is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,117
Default

well, for the purposes of our discussion, of the definitions of "Right" on that link, I would say either #18 or #19 apply:

18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

As for privilege, the first three definitions define "Privilege" as a special kind of "right" !

1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

So where is the distinction? Is flying a right? Well, it is if you have a pilot's license... in which case it is a right, which also happens to be a privilege. According to the above three definitions a privilege is also a right. I think the argument is pretty vacuous because we all agree that we should be allowed to fly if we can do without harm or danger to society. Whether to call it a "right" or a "privilege" is just a matter of which definitions you want to pull out of those long lists... noting that there is a lot of overlap between the definitions in the lists!

Anyway, my main confusion is over how people seem to get so impassioned when arguing over subtle points of definition (I can think of one very contraversial topic in Canadian politics that is a wonderul example of this, but we'd better not go there...)

oh... this thread has also reminded me that I cannot spell!
__________________
Phil
RV9A (SB)
Flying since July 2010!
Ottawa, Canada
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-11-2006, 02:57 PM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prkaye
oh... this thread has also reminded me that I cannot spell!
Yes, that is why I have to run my words through Microsoft Word's spellchecker before I dare post here. I would hate to think what my posts would look like, or if they would even be legible, if I did not do so.
__________________
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A
https://rvwings.com

Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-11-2006, 04:55 PM
N62XS N62XS is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hazlehurst, GA
Posts: 1,390
Default Round 2

Capital Punishment?
__________________

IHN,

2020 Dues Paid

Robby Knox

THEM: Why do you always carry a knife?

ME: I can't open a bag of chips with my Glock!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:43 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.