|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted January 31, 2010 11:25 PM |
|
|
I thought you already led this discussion a while ago. MVass was like "slavery is unprofitable because you need to provide food, shelter and whatnot to the slaves", which is, according to him, far harder and requires far more effort than providing them with healthcare, wages, free choice and other stuff like today.
Or at least that's how I remember it went.
Didn't make too much sense back then either.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 12:47 AM |
|
|
Death:
If computers were capable of doing what humans are capable of doing, then yes. But computers currently being what they are, a "free computer" makes no more sense than a "free hammer".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 06:49 AM |
|
|
This is why I stopped even bothering to discuss. People basically just say. "No you are wrong, and I am right." without supplying any FACTS why it is the case. Just more of their own opinion. *shrugs*
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 09:24 AM |
bonus applied by angelito on 02 Feb 2010. |
|
Oh, it's not that I hadn't supplied facts three and four times over; it's just that people are ignoring them. Let's summarize:
1) Rights (we are discussing here) are something humans have against other humans, EXCLUSIVELY. Animal rights may be something that's underway, but we are interested exclusively in human rights here, and those human rights make sense against other humans only, because you cannot claim rights against nature, god, aliens, ghosts or whatever.
That means, a "human right" is something ONE human has against (all) other humans.
2) It's immediately obvious, that rights as such are of human making. However the point was, that, for example, the right to live is no human concoction in order to have foundations to put the laws upon, but something of a "law of nature", a matter of course, something that is "objectively right", that is so in an absolute sense and humans would have discovered that only and then just phrased accordingly. A rule of nature, so-to-speak.
However, there are no facts that would support this:
a) For everyone believing in a higher being, that higher being is the source of laws, justice, objectivity and absoluteness. That being is the ultimate court, so what is considered a right depends on that being and also, if when and how a person may forfeit that right.
b) For everyone else who does not see an absolute being, there is no source of absoluteness.
A look on nature will tell you, that nature is pretty wasteful with life. In fact nature isn't interested in INDIVIDUAL life, it seems, but only in life as such and its continuation. Facts? Cell regeneration with women will work a lot longer for women who haven't had a child - nature wants you to reproduce and invests in your continued well-being. As soon as a woman does reproduce, nature loses interest: cell regeneration deteriorates.
Rights in nature? Nada. It's a free-for-all, who comes first eats first. If you would have to phrase natural rights it was: you have the right to do everything you want, but don't forget to reproduce.
Look at predators: they mark their own turfs - claiming food rights there - and fight it out, if they become so plentiful that turfs get too small. They are interested only in themselves and THEIR genes.
That is true with other animals living in packs as well. Individual animals are NOT equal within their packs, on the contrary. There is a situation of rivalry for reproduction - survival of the strongest and such with first pick to the pack leader.
Humans are something of an exception from the rule. We go AGAINST nature: we help our old and sick ones; we allow the weak to reproduce (instead of allowing predators to pick them for food); we even change nature. However, it wasn't always so. Humans have developed. Nothing about the laws is primitive anymore or natural. In fact we are long past the point where we'd be interested in what nature or anything else may want to tell us. That's because we make our own destiny - or try it, whether for good or bad.
What is called "natural rights", or basically just "human rights" is a product of societal development and reason or rationality. When they were first formulated, their understanding was vastly different from now: slaves and women didn't count as "men" then; slaves had the rank of animals, while women didn't have equal rights (not to mention a ton of other things). Today, they are NOT accepted by a majority, worldwide, and where they are part of the constitution, they are and have been not always followed by the population - ethnic problems, for example, are more the rule than the exception and demonstrate this continually.
Is there anything, anywhere that - on considering - would give the idea that every human has a RIGHT to live (once born)? That's an exclusively jurisdictional question, because living persons wouldn't care whether they have a right to live or not - they simply want to (live, that is). Would a starving person care whether he or she had the right to pluck an apple from the first tree he or she stumbles upon? Not really. So a person wouldn't ask him- or herself whether he or she had a right to live - from an individual point of view it's no question of rights. From an individual point of view it's more like an outrage - formulating "a right to live" might suggest the opposite: people telling others they had NO right to live.
In fact, there has been times, very long times, when this was so, and this has to be considered as well. Maybe that's another reason why constitutions wanted to put that in.
Note, that the right to live, is a very theoretical one, because it gives no one a claim. Can a starving person sue anyone based on the right to live? Only when there were other persons actively taking away food or would somehow make sure the person didn't get any - it's no right that would give a person a court claim to avoid death by suing society to help surviving. It's the same thing than the right to work. In Germany people have the basic right to work (imagine that! I don't know how it's in other countries); but of course they don't have the right to GET work or the right on EMPLOYMENT.
The basic rights are indeed the axioms of the constitution and the laws, but they are far from "natural". Nor are they "objectively" right. "All men are created equal", is OBVIOUSLY not true. They simply are not. "No matter how different men are, they should be treated equally before the law". Even THAT is wrong - people with mental defects are treated differently than sane ones.
What is meant is, that before the law no factor should be considered that's not relevant for the case at hand... and even THAT isn't strictly true: when someone steals juwels, it seems to make a difference, whether that someone is rich and does it for kicks (kleptomania) or whether he or she is poor and does it for money (and try to explain, being poor, that you are actually a honest person and don't do it for the money).
Anyway, the bottom line is, that basic or natural rights are just sign posts for the actual law, and it's purely HUMAN-MADE sign-posts. For a reasonable mind of the 21st century it seems rational and natural that no one should be disadvantaged or even killed because of his or her race. But either we live in a lawless space and make our own laws that come "only" with human authority behind it - or we accept the existance of some "higher" authority. In this last case, however, we need a flawless chain of evidence as PROOF not only for the existance of that higher authority, but for the fact that a right or law or whatever else based on that is INDEED in keeping with said authority.
For me, mind you, this - the law - is something very positive, something to be proud of. Since we are not perfect, we tend to make a blunder of things more often than not, and we shouldn't claim higher authorities (anymore) for things we as a species are solely responsible for.
Or didn't anyone notice that we have long stopped accepting higher authorities telling us how to live? Oh, sure, it's still claimed once in a while or even quite often, depending on country and purpose, but in reality? In reality we have been infants, become children and are now in the midst of adolescence, busily trying our skills, cocksure that we can do better than the "parents" (gods or "nature").
As a last note or a PS:
Some here seem to see a big rivalry, a big rift, between society and its government. That's not a matter of course, not in the least. The problem of government is in fact a problem of society: the more developed a society is, the more chances and opportunities there are, in short: the bigger and more numerous the DIFFERENCES of the members of any one society, that society is in reality breaking apart in smaller or bigger interest groups. In earlier times that was also the case, but of course there were less groupings. A modern capitalist country is not a homogenic society, but basicaally a conglomerate of smaller societies, all competing with each other for rights and power. The members of government are in fact always representing interests of certain groupings as soon as groupings have contradictory interests, and it would be the task of any government to find COMPROMISES (not to serve the interests of specific groupings).
Which is in fact the problem: if a goverments decides very strongly in favor of one interest - it automatically decides very strongly AGAINST others, provoking protests and criticism. If the government - for whatever reason - really tries to compromise - most of the time EVERYONE will be pissed because the result may be a horrible behemoth of a law, a gruesome Frankenstein's monster with parts not fitting together and so on, and the result will be called "lukewarm", "useless" and so on.
However, by reducing the involvement of the government, you won't make things any better, because the actual differences between interests will not vanish into thin air - their settling will simply be transferred from the POLITIC arm exclusively to the ECONOMIC arm.
The truth is, that there simply is no patent solution for this basic problem of governing highly diversified societies with widely varying interests.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 09:35 AM |
|
|
Which you would be correct Jolly..if humans were exclusively the only things 'living'. However, that is most certainly NOT the case. By which I mean, that even in an area where mankind has never set foot, life goes on. So the 'right' to live is not mutually exclusive to humans. Only IF it is mutually exclusive, is your 'facts' supported. Since that is not the case, your 'facts' fall short.
That means that there is more elements then society. Including, but not limited to ones own self. Sure, one might have to fight to enforce their own right, if society didn't exist..BUT that does not make it non existant.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 09:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Which you would be correct Jolly..if humans were exclusively the only things 'living'. However, that is most certainly NOT the case. By which I mean, that even in an area where mankind has never set foot, life goes on. So the 'right' to live is not mutually exclusive to humans. Only IF it is mutually exclusive, is your 'facts' supported. Since that is not the case, your 'facts' fall short.
That means that there is more elements then society. Including, but not limited to ones own self. Sure, one might have to fight to enforce their own right, if society didn't exist..BUT that does not make it non existant.
Huh?
There is LIFE beside humanity and in areas outside of humanity, correct.
But where do you see the RIGHT to live that life. Who or what would it come from? Who or what purpose would it have?
Don't you see that RIGHT is a question that doesn't interest life in the least? No animal cares about RIGHTs; it just lives, as well as plants. No animal cares about whether another plant or being has a right to live or not. It lives and it has a drive to live on, and some will prey on others, instinctively, right or not.
So where does the "right" come from? Certainly NOT from the animals, that much is sure.
If there were no humans on earth - let's say 100 million years back: what about your rights to live? Where are they? Who cared? Whatfor?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 09:50 AM |
|
|
They may had to FIGHT for it more, but that doesn't mean it had any less meaning to them. See, and that is where your proof falls apart. The right to life has meaning to the INDIVIDUAL, even animals cared about their own right to life. It existed BEFORE society, and thus society can not GIVE what was already THERE.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 10:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They may had to FIGHT for it more, but that doesn't mean it had any less meaning to them. See, and that is where your proof falls apart. The right to life has meaning to the INDIVIDUAL, even animals cared about their own right to life. It existed BEFORE society, and thus society can not GIVE what was already THERE.
See the italics? Animals cared for their own right to life? Sorry, but that is just nonsense, Mytical. Big nonsense. Animals do not NEED anything like a right to live (neither do humans, by the way). They need a RIGHT to live as necessary as a RIGHT to see, if they have eyes, a RIGHT to hear, if they have ears, and a right to eat and even kill, if they have teeth and claw. They use what they are equipped with, and don't ask questions about their existance.
There just is nothing and no one to either grant or steal any RIGHTS from them. There simply ARE NO rights.
If a deer flees from a predator, it doesn't do so because it fights for its right to live - it flees because its instincts know that its life is threatened and they scream SURVIVAL. Now, the wolves who hunt it: they don't care about rights either, one way or another - they see prey because they are hungry and want to eat. Period.
They do what they do and they don't need any justification for their (continued) existance.
As the word "right" says it has something to do with justification and, in the en, moral. Moral is something that needs free will, though. The freedom of will within animals is rather limited, though. They don't question their behaviour. Consequently there are no rights and no violation of rights either.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 10:31 AM |
|
|
Which is your view on how it is, or your opinion if you prefer. I hold an entirely different veiw. To me if you struggle for your life, you acknowledge your right to live. If by instinct, intelligence, or just plain stubborness. Also, I disagree that animals are not as intelligent or sometimes even more so then man. Like the dolphin. Maybe a different kind of intelligence, and no opposible thumb, but intelligent anyhow.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 10:53 AM |
|
|
But you can't back your opinion with anything evidential.
Answer the following questions, please:
1) Does an animal (or human, for that matter) with eyes have a right to use (or keep) them. If you answer, yes, if there was no humans, who could violate that right and how?
If you answer no: if there is no (necessity for) the right to use or keep eyes, if something has them, why would there be the right to use or keep life if something has it?
2) Imagine the world a million years ago. Can an animal violate the right to live of another animal. If you answer yes, give an example, please (a real one, where it happens, not a hypothetical one that involves words like might and if); is this violation of the rights to live you name an INDIVIDUAL one (one specific animal violating one specific animal as an individual case) or is it a general one based on species (does this violation happen generally).
What consequence does this violation have, if any?
If you answer no, what relevance has your supposed right?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 10:57 AM |
|
|
Actually I can. There is records .. like this one...
http://www.eurocbc.org/page158.html and others of animals saving HUMAN lives. Now if animals didn't care about LIFE, why would they bother? Since it is not only domesticated animals, can not be because they benifit from it somehow. So exactly where does that put your 'theory' that only humans care about the 'right' to live?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 11:52 AM |
|
|
For the matter of this issue it's not a question of RESULT (a human life saved, wow), but of intentions and motives, that much should be obvious. You, however are jumping to completely unreasonable conclusions, assuming certain intentions and motives from the result.
That's obviously faulty procedure.
I don't see you answering my questions, although it's two simple yes-no questions. That means, you either won't or can't. Which is too bad.
I take it, then, that's it.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 11:58 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:02, 01 Feb 2010.
|
Two yes-no. I will grant. Simple, not even close. Take it as you want however. You are giving Hypothetical situations, and then saying "Don't answer with a hypothetical answer." Yeah.
However, you pretty much said that there would be no intentions OR motives for an animal to save a human life EVER. It would not benefit them, especially wild animals. So if they do not value life, if they only go on instinct this would never happen, under any circumstances. So .. why does it in your view? Don't have to answer that.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 12:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Two yes-no. I will grant. Simple, not even close. Take it as you want however. You are giving Hypothetical situations, and then saying "Don't answer with a hypothetical answer." Yeah.
What's hypothetical about the questions or "situations"? Can you tell me that?
Quote:
However, you pretty much said that there would be no intentions OR motives for an animal to save a human life EVER. It would not benefit them, especially wild animals.
What? That's neither true nor is it relevant. YOU claim, that the animals that DID rescue human life(s) could ONLY do it because they would acknowledge the right to life. So it's exactly the other way round. YOU claim that a result can happen only because of what you assume, while I say that you have to exclude all other possibilities first to assume that, and that is something you can't. The animals may do it for ANY number of reasons and motives. It's like animals doing something SEEMINGLY intelligent - you can't just assume they ARE intelligent (or would do what they do for the same reasons and motives than a human); it may have other reasons.
Quote:
So if they do not value life, if they only go on instinct this would never happen, under any circumstances. So .. why does it in your view? Don't have to answer that.
No, that's not true, not at all. LOTS of FEMALE animals will accept cubs from a different species. You don't need to assume an essential "good-will" here and say, well, it's clear they are doing it because they have a heart, moral feelings, they can't bring it over them to let a pub starve or something. That's only a PROJECTION of HUMAN motives and reasons onto those animals. Humanisation of animals. In fact, the instinct allows for it, (I'm no expert on animal behaviour so I don't know that current state of research), I'd assume it was because cubs dont't trigger any threat signals, and if a female animal has cubs on their own the instinct to take care of cubs is fixed on signals that cubs of other species may fit in as well.
Same thing with certain dogs who "care" for potential prey. Herding dogs just LIKE to herd: cattle, children, no matter. If a human keeps such a dog the dog will be happy only when it has tasks. However, it would be premature to assume HUMAN motives, something like a moral goodness. It's the NATURE of herding dogs to herd, and to assume they do it because they value life or respect and protect the right to live of their charges would just be an assumption.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 12:39 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:10, 01 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Oh, it's not that I hadn't supplied facts three and four times over; it's just that people are ignoring them. Let's summarize:
Nah, it is just that you are stating your opinions as facts. Sorry, your statments are not facts just becauswe you say so.
PROVE that man has no inhernet rights. I am sorry that you disagree that humans have rights and dignity apart from what the State decides to grant them. You are in disagreement with German society it seems.
Quote:
1) Rights (we are discussing here) are something humans have against other humans, EXCLUSIVELY. ..... and those human rights make sense against other humans only, because you cannot claim rights against nature, god, aliens, ghosts or whatever.
That means, a "human right" is something ONE human has against (all) other humans.
Oh, so in the event that extraterrestrials discover Earth you are fine with them killing humans because humans have no right to live?
Quote:
2) It's immediately obvious, that the right as such is of human making. However the point was, that, for example, the right to live is no human concoction in order to have foundations to put the laws upon, but something of "law of nature", a matter of course, something that is "objectively right", that is so in an absolute sense and humans would have discovered that only and then phrased accordingly. A rule of nature, so-to-speak.
It may be "obvious" to you, but your "obvious" viewoint has many flaws. Who "made" the idea of human rights? The State? There are no facts to support your claims.
I whole-heartedly disagree with you. I contend that it is self-evident that people have a right to live. I have to hand it to you though, you are consistant with the implications of an atheistic world view.
Quote:
b) For everyone else who does not see an absolute being, there is no source of absoluteness.
Your stament is just flat wrong. There are people who are atheists who nonetheless believe in an absolute morality.
Quote:
Humans are something of an exception from the rule. We go AGAINST nature: we help our old and sick ones; we allow the weak to reproduce; we change nature.
Another statement that is just flat wrong. There are quite a few examples of animals rescuing injured humans. Dolphins helping people who are drowning, dogs rescuing a person in trouble, ect.
For example, here is an exaple of a stray dog rescuing an abandoned baby.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/09/world/main693970.shtml
Another example:
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2008/08/26/dog-rescues-baby.aspx
Dog rescues drowing baby and gets help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8p-hPpvgg
Dolphin helps drowning person
http://www.eurocbc.org/page158.html
Dog saves man from bull
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=6761
Quote:
What is called "natural rights", or basically just "human rights" is a product of societal development and reason or rationality.
Again, you are merely stating your opinions as facts. Society is not the granter of rights. Society can merely acknowledge rights that already exist.
Quote:
Is there anything, anywhere that - on considering would give the idea that every human has a RIGHT to live (once born)?
Yes. People who have a conscious that is not seared will say that other humans have a right to live. Again, the right of people to live is a self-evident right.
Most of the people in the world who claim there are no human rigths are people like serial killers and other human preditors. They view others as having no dignity/rights. Something to be used by themselves.
Quote:
That's and exclusively jurisdictional question, because living persons wouldn't care whether they have a right to live or not - they simply want to.
Again, flat out wrong. If you were to swim to a desert island that had only one person living on it and steal some of his possessions he would feel wronged. Becaus he believes he has a right to his property.
According to your logic it would be perfectly fine for you to kill the hermit becasue he has no right to live. I'm quite sure the hermit himself would think that he does indeed have a right to live.
Human rights have not the slightest thing to do with "jurisdiction." The courts are not the source of rights. The state is not the source of rights. government is established to protect rights, not to grant them.
Quote:
Note, that the right to live, is a very theoretical one, because it gives no one a claim. Can a starving person sue anyone based on the right to live?
It is bizzare to think that rights are contingent on whether or not you can sue someone. Now, if a thief broke in and stole his the starving man's food, yes, he can sue.
Did the man have a right to live only if the thief is found? So if it takes the police two weeks to find the thief during those two weeks the man had no right to live but suddenly on day 14 the man has a right to live? That is bizzare.
Now, if you kill my wife, yes, I can sue you becasue my wife has a right to live. At least I can sue you in the US. Perhaps you recall the OJ Simpson civil trial?
But even if there were no govenements in the world my wife would still hav ethe right to live.
Quote:
The basic rights are indeed the axioms of the constitution and the laws, but they are far from "natural". Nor are they "objectively" right.
I am sorry that you view poeple in such a way tha they need that State to grant them rights rather than having rights by virtue of being a human being. I think it is self evident that people have an objective right to live.
Quote:
"All men are created equal", is OBVIOUSLY not true. They simply are not.
That is a sad statement. Saying all men are created equal does not mean that everyone has the same abilities. It is saying that there are inalienable human rights and that those rights exist independent of what any governemnt beaurocrat thinks. It is saying the righs of man come from God. The state has no power apart from what the poeple give it. The rights of the people are not derived from the scraps the State throws their way.
I would say that it is YOUR opinion that is OBVIOUSLY wrong.
Quote:
Or didn't anyone notice that we have long stopped accepting higher authorities telling us how to live? Oh, sure, it's still claimed once in a while or even quite often, depending on country and purpose, but in reality? In reality we have been infants, became children and are now in the midst of adolescence, busily trying our skills, cocksure that we can do better than the "parents" (gods or "nature").
Oh yes, Lenie, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, ect, surely showed us fine exsamples of human maturity apart from God, did they not? The too claimed the State was the source of "rights."
But certainly the vast majority of people in the world reject their views. The vast majority of people in the world are theists who do indeed believe thera is a higher authority and the human rights come from that authority, not from Father Stalin and his ilk.
In my opinion the infantile viewpoint is that human beings have no inherent rights. Mature human beings recognize that others have the right to live and other rights regardless of what the State says.
Atheism is in worldwide decline by the way.
Quote:
A modern capitalist country is not a homogenic society, but basicaally a conglomerate of smaller societies, all competing with each other for rights and power.
Wrong again, though in keeping with communist indoctrination.
In capitalism most people are not competing to see who will become the most wealthy and most powerful. People work to provide for their families for the most part.
Oh, and in the US everyone from the richest to the poorest person has the same rights. Of couse in communist nations it is the favor of the state that gives one rights. The leaders of hte communist party live quite well while the "peons" live in squalor.
Quote:
However, by reducing the involvement of the government, you won't make things any better, because the actual differences between interests will not vanish into thin air - their settling will simply be transferred from the POLITIC arm exclusively to the ECONOMIC arm.
Oh yes, freedom is always better. I don't need Father Stalin running my life, thanks. Let me support he minimal governemnt functinos necessary and leave me to live my life in peace as I see fit rather than as some government beaurocrat thinks I should. My rights don't come from the government and I don't need the government to be my nanny.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 01:06 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:19, 01 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
See the italics? Animals cared for their own right to life? Sorry, but that is just nonsense, Mytical. Big nonsense.
Your statements are just nonsense, JJ. Big nonsense.
If animals did not care about their right to live they would no fight for it.
And I have already quoted instances of animals rescuing people, even infants.
Quote:
There just is nothing and no one to either grant or steal any RIGHTS from them.
No one grants rights to me either, JJ. I have rights regardless of if the State recognizes them or not.
Quote:
They do what they do and they don't need any justification for their (continued) existance.
What a bizzare statement. Who said that rights justify one's existecnce?
Quote:
As the word "right" says it has something to do with justification and, in the en, moral. Moral is something that needs free will, though. The freedom of will within animals is rather limited, though. They don't question their behaviour. Consequently there are no rights and no violation of rights either.
No, a right has not one thing to do with "justification."
But you are wrong once again in saying animals don't question teir behavior. For example, if I have a pet and he does something he knows he should not have done he will act differently. He will be guilty. You seem to have never had a pet.
However, it is quite bizzare to say that in order for one to have rights he has to somehow be able to distinguish between moral and immoral actions.
Does a person in a comma have rights? What about a person in a mental institution? According to your statments they do not.
Quote:
) Does an animal (or human, for that matter) with eyes have a right to use (or keep) them. If you answer, yes, if there was no humans, who could violate that right and how?
Yes, of course I have a right to my eyes JJ. My rights to my eyes are in no way tied to someone being around to take them away. Your stements are so strange.
Quote:
2) Imagine the world a million years ago. Can an animal violate the right to live of another animal. If you answer yes, give an example, please (a real one, where it happens, not a hypothetical one that involves words like might and if); is this violation of the rights to live you name an INDIVIDUAL one (one specific animal violating one specific animal as an individual case) or is it a general one based on species (does this violation happen generally).
What consequence does this violation have, if any?
If you answer no, what relevance has your supposed right?
Again, your staments are rather bizzare.
If an dog "goes bonkers" and starts killing all the other neighborhood dogs, cats, ect, something will be done about it.
However, it is nonsense to think that unless a person suffers consequences for his actions that he did not violate anyone's rights. A serial killer may kill lots of people and never be caught. That does not mean taht the people he killed did not have the right to live.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 01:21 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:25, 01 Feb 2010.
|
What is hypothetical?
Quote:
1) Does an animal (or human, for that matter) with eyes have a right to use (or keep) them. If you answer, yes, if there was no humans, who could violate that right and how?
If you answer no: if there is no (necessity for) the right to use or keep eyes, if something has them, why would there be the right to use or keep life if something has it?
First you have to ASSUME you know know what animals are thinking. Since I am not an animal, there is no way I can know what they are thinking. So the question becomes hypothetical, putting myself in place of said animal (other then of the human kind). Which is deffinately NOT the case now is it?
Also, just for the record I never made any assumptions as to why an animal might save a human, but stated that it does not fit with any instinct. Especially wild animals like dolphins saving humans.
Quote:
2) Imagine the world a million years ago. Can an animal violate the right to live of another animal. If you answer yes, give an example, please (a real one, where it happens, not a hypothetical one that involves words like might and if); is this violation of the rights to live you name an INDIVIDUAL one (one specific animal violating one specific animal as an individual case) or is it a general one based on species (does this violation happen generally).
What consequence does this violation have, if any?
If you answer no, what relevance has your supposed right?
Do I really need to explain why the bolded word makes it hypothetical?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) Does an animal (or human, for that matter) with eyes have a right to use (or keep) them. If you answer, yes, if there was no humans, who could violate that right and how?
If you answer no: if there is no (necessity for) the right to use or keep eyes, if something has them, why would there be the right to use or keep life if something has it?
First you have to ASSUME you know know what animals are thinking. Since I am not an animal, there is no way I can know what they are thinking. So the question becomes hypothetical, putting myself in place of said animal (other then of the human kind). Which is deffinately NOT the case now is it?
Why would it matter what anyone, human or animals is THINKING, if there was an INHERENT right to live (or to use one's senses) in every being (that is, a right not in the least dependant on thinking or not thinking). Second, in which way does the violation of an inherent right to live (or use your eyes) depend on what either the owner or the violator THINK (as opposed to do)?
Which leads to the question why you have to assume knowing what an animal is thinking.
Quote:
Also, just for the record I never made any assumptions as to why an animal might save a human, but stated that it does not fit with any instinct. Especially wild animals like dolphins saving humans.
Now, for the record as well, how would you know, whether saving would not fit with any instincts? On the contrary, as the feeding of other species' cubs shows, such behavior is very much in keeping with instincts. Dolphins saving humans may well has something to do with PLAYFULNESS (yes, some animals like to play), for example.
Quote:
Quote:
2) Imagine the world a million years ago. Can an animal violate the right to live of another animal. If you answer yes, give an example, please (a real one, where it happens, not a hypothetical one that involves words like might and if); is this violation of the rights to live you name an INDIVIDUAL one (one specific animal violating one specific animal as an individual case) or is it a general one based on species (does this violation happen generally).
What consequence does this violation have, if any?
If you answer no, what relevance has your supposed right?
Do I really need to explain why the bolded word makes it hypothetical?
Yes, you do. Because it's not a fictive situation. There has been a time without humans, obviously, so the question isn't hypothetical, it's just asking you to imagine how it was when there were ONLY animals and NO humans. You can just as well imagine any unpopulated isle with wildlife, ANY area without humans and with wildlife without any human contact. Brazilian jungle or something. What the hell is hypothetical about that?
I think you are just stalling and balking here.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 03:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nah, it is just that you are stating your opinions as facts. Sorry, your statments are not facts just becauswe you say so.
This made me laugh for a while...Ever used this quote against yourself?
....only because something is written in a two thousand year old book doesn't make it a fact...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 03:35 PM |
|
|
I think a QP for JJ's long post above is in order. I'm not sure I agree with every point made, but it was a nice post, level-headed and cogently argued. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
