[The_Rorschach]

Well Worthless. . .I'm not entirely sure where you see any pretense in my post, so I can't exactly address your grievances. I rather thought my conclusions were logically grounded (owing my frame of thought to John Finnis {Finnis laboured long on the difference between a “‘Claim’ Right” or “Right in the ‘Strict Sense’” and a “Liberty” or “Liberty Right” in his book "Natural Law and Natural Rights" New York/Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Finnis begins his analysis of this difference by calling attention to the discussion of rights provided by W. N. Hohfeld in an early twentieth-century work in jurisprudence [Finnis refers to W.N. Hohfeld’s "Fundamental Legal Conceptions" New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1919]}). The right to work would quite clearly be a claim right, a liberty, as opposed to say the right to life, which is a de facto right, or right stricto sensu.

As for the crusty cunt reference, well, that was singular. You could find SOME crusty cunt (not cunts, which would denote plurality), like say Judy Woodruff from CNN for instance. It is possible. I wasn't saying all ugly people were crusty cunts. You are probably just mildly unattractive for instance. I wouldn't make such a broad generalization without justification. It would be rather presumptuous of me.

And furthermore, I do think about what it would be like to be other people. The other night I thought I would sick up, so I took myself into the alley (as not to puke in the pub) and after I noticed I had emptied my stomach on a homeless person -and not the bundle of rubbish he appeared to be- I immediately thought about how it must suck to be him for a good couple minutes before going to back to the bar.[/i]