|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 01, 2010 03:49 PM |
|
|
Thanks, Corribus.
Err, speaking of laws, I really blast through Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy - it's the best read I've had in years, at least in the fantasy department, and it beats Martin's Ice&Fire saga, the way it's presenting itself starting with book 4, by a mile or two.
To think that this is the first try of the guy...
In the acknowledgements he seems to mention his publisher with "who bought it before he got to the end". I have to say I very much approve with that decision.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
There is no reason to think that animals saving humans is playfulness. The onlly rational explaination that animals have saved humans in many situations is that they thought it was "the right thing to do." It is strange that you seem to believe animals can't think. Again, you apparently have never owned a pet or lived on a farm.
The links are evidence that the animals are trying to "do the right thing." Now you must present evidence that the evidence actually does not mean what it looks like. Becaause right now the evidence is not on your side.
Quote:
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...
Well of course I've never quoted the Bible as evidence of anything other than what the Bible teaches or Christians believe.
But I understand that many atheists feel like they are not required to prove anything, that evryone else has all the burden of proof for everything while they can say whatever they want to is fact.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 06:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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".
Dear mvass, I meant "IF" computers had the capacity to REFUSE you. Don't you have any imagination at all? Imagine that a computer MAY refuse you if it "doesn't feel like it" or "doesn't like it" or whatever... according to you that must be more productive. I didn't say that the CURRENT computers do that, because the CURRENT humans aren't slaves either. The "current" computer is a slave, a tool, and you're productive with it. If it suddenly started to refuse you for its own reasons and personal choices (not technical, which you can solve -- like for example, giving food to slaves), are you saying you would be more productive?Quote:
it's just that people are ignoring them.
You make me laugh, IgnoreJoker.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I meant "IF" computers had the capacity to REFUSE you.
Just by that alone, no. If computers were like animals, I would still have the right to use them as tools.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 07:12 PM |
|
|
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 04:04 AM |
|
|
But seriously, what is the point to discuss whether humans have the right to live or no and from where does that right come?
Do you have any problem with humans having such rights?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 05:50 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 05:57, 02 Feb 2010.
|
Jolly, do you even know what a hypothetical situation is? In laymens terms it is a situation that you have to imagine or create something. So if you are imagining any part of a scenario, at all, it is automatically a hypothetical situation. I am not going to argue about this, so whatever.
The difference in this discussion (or what passes for one) is this. I am saying. All I have is an opinion. Which can neither be proven or disproven.
You are saying My Opinion is fact, I am backing by other Opinions that are fact. Then suppling opinions AS facts. Life IS a natural occurance. We don't spring from some manufacturing plant. We are not built artifically.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 07:49 AM |
|
|
Lol.
An opinion that can't be proven (you said yours was that), what is that? Don't you think that's hypothetical in its very nature? Don't you think a lot of what is discussed here is VERY hypothetical?
Didn't you even create a bloody thread, presenting hypothetical situations for everyone to answer?
A look at the board seems to indicate that you like to imagine things fine, for example for stories and gaming purposes.
For someone who's now dancing around something supposedly hypothetical like the devil round the holy water bassin you have a pretty interesting history with "hypothetical".
I call that dishonest.
I don't like dishonest arguing, and I don't have a high opinion of people who do that when they have no points. It's hypocritical as well: aren't YOU complaining about dishonesty in politics, about humans in general?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 07:55 AM |
|
|
No I have no issue with hypothetical problems. My issue is that you ask the hypothetical questions and then say "Don't answer in a Hypothetical way." Now if you want me to answer your Hypothetical questions I will. MY way.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 08:06 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:43, 02 Feb 2010.
|
To answer your questions. 1) Does an animal have a right to keep its eye (paraphrase). I will answer with a question. If Jimbobfurleybob goes and cuts off your hand..for no reason. Do you think he might have just violated your rights? If not..I don't know what to tell you. Now let me go back and read the questions making sure I cover everything. Accidents, forces of nature, etc can 'violate' the right if you want to go as far as to say.."No humans exist". Or even other animals. So yes, I believe it has the right to keep its eye, and only by something violating that right will it not do so.
It is a hypothetical question because you either have to 'assume' that animals are incapable of anything but instinct, or that they are indeed capable of different thought patterns. You have to make assumptions either way. That to me is pretty much what a hypothetical is all about.
Which it seems is what you somehow are missing in this conversation. Other creatures have rights besides humans, even if humans ignore this and choose to violate those rights.
Lets go to instinct before I answer the second question, even though I believe it is an exercise in futility because you are so sure of your 'facts' (opinions stated as facts) that it doesn't matter what I say.
Some questions for you to ponder. Do humans not have instincts? Can those instincts not take over some times? Because of instincts does that mean humans are not capable of thought?
Now animals might be less able to overcome their instincts, but that does not prove they are not capable of thought. Since we can not read their mind, and they can not communicate to us..we have no way of knowing WHAT they are capable of in that aspect. For all WE know our dogs might be spending their nights howling to ask each other about quantum physics. Unlikely, yes. That is completely beside the point. The point is WE DO NOT KNOW.
Now I believe I have sort of answered the second, but I will again..just so you don't miss it.
Can an animal...in any age..violate the right of any other animal. That depends on your Opinion of if animals are capable of anything other then instinct. Now..if you want something to chew on..
What about apes learning sign language? I can supply links if you need them for just such things. Where does that fit in? Doesn't that suggest they are capable of more then just 'instinctual' thought?
You keep saying I have been (paraphrasing) untruthful in some manner.
I stated that I know mine is an opinion. You have stated yours as fact when it is just opinion disguised as fact. I stated why I objected to your questions (the fact they were hypothetical but did not 'allow' for hypothetical answers). I was not 'dodging' your questions, but making sure you knew why I had issues with them before answering. It honestly doesn't matter if you think I am being 'Dishonest' Jolly. I do things in my own manner, in my own time, in my own way. I've never once been dishonest about that fact, nor have I ever made a post I did not honestly believe except in jest .. and that it was in jest was ALWAYS obvious.
So believe what you like, think of me whatever you will. I don't honestly care. Somebody else always uses the 'liar' and 'etc' and you had issues with that. Who is the hypocrit?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 01:29 PM |
|
|
I'm going to try one last time to explain the problem - read it or don't answer or not.
When RIGHTS are claimed, an AUTHORITY is needed to back that up: "I have the right to do this or that." If someone tells you that, your immediate answer is: "Yeah? Who or what gives you that?"
Usually RIGHTS are based on some Code of LAW. Governmental law, God's Law, Moral's Law, Universe's Law, ANY law, but A LAW. Because only if it's based on a law you can claim a RIGHT (you can claim whatever you want, but without a law to back it you cannot claim a RIGHT because LAW is what MAKES IT SO).
Now the Basic or Human rights are, as far as I know, in the US constitution and in the German as well, based on GOD and GOD's Law, that is to be kept in mind - when those ideas were laid down their fundament was God. It says, that all those rights come from god - which may or may not be true, but AT LEAST it's LOGICAL and in keeping with what these terms mean and represent.
However, that's a bit of a problem when you want to put those rights on something else than god - not everyone believes in that specific god or any god, and from a scientific and rational point of view it would be favorable to have something more palpable than god's millennia old words.
If you try to do that by simply leaving out the Code of Law (God gave those rights) and define INTRINSIC (or natural) Rights, you basically define a new authority as well, an intrinsic authority (or an intrinsic Code of Law), because without that the term "right" loses its meaning.
Now, the negation - claiming that someone has NO right to live - would need the same: an authority and a Code of Laws backing that.
Example: Imagine this Code of Law: Work is the purpose of human life, and necessary to maintain life, therefore by working humans starting with age 12 earn the right to live (on). Those not working after reaching the age of 12 serve no purpose and shall be put to death.
Accepting this code of law, finding a 13-year-old not working would justify: "You don't work, so you have no right to live anymore."
In practise, the law can obviously remove the right to live - death penalty does this. It says, that the perpetrator has forfeit the right to live with his doings, so in this case the "intrinsic right" is cancelled.
So: for the intrinsic or natural right we are short an intrinsic or natural code of law/authority. Which means that these "rights" have no foundation except their own postulation. Saying that every human comes equipped with them, is, then, a PURELY HUMAN DEFINITION. Rights DECLARED absolute BY HUMANS. Not more.
For more you need the code of law/authority behind it, another one than human declaration. Can you name any?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 02:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Example: Imagine this Code of Law: Work is the purpose of human life, and necessary to maintain life, therefore by working humans starting with age 12 earn the right to live (on). Those not working after reaching the age of 12 serve no purpose and shall be put to death.
Accepting this code of law, finding a 13-year-old not working would justify: "You don't work, so you have no right to live anymore."
it's like nazism. You can't work, thus you must die.
obviously, most people didn't agree with this vision of things
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 03:43 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Now the Basic or Human rights are, as far as I know, in the US constitution and in the German as well, based on GOD and GOD's Law, that is to be kept in mind - when those ideas were laid down their fundament was God.
Just a small correction - the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically, does not specify the source of the rights granted within. It merely states them as a part of the Law in the context of what kinds of laws Congress "shall not pass". I.e., there's no mention of any god whatsoever. I can't, of course, comment on any German legal documents.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 03:51 PM |
|
|
Fauch, that example is an INVENTION by me - it is far away from Nazism, very far away, and it doesn't say anything about people who CANNOT work (only about people that DO NOT work).
Such a law had therefore an obvious hole. Does it make a difference whether you COULD work, but don't want to, or you want but cannot (because you are sick, for example).
If you think back to very early times of human history, you will find that in ancient times something like that would have been something like a NATURAL LAW: people who wouldn't work would starve, if alone (die automatically). People who could work, but wouldn't, would die automatically as well, since the tribe wouldn't very probably do anything for you, if you wouldn't do something for the tribe - and with no state or welfare, well. (Note that this is VERY different from arbitrarily declaring a specific form of life unworthy to live - the Blacks, the Jews, Lepers, Homosexuals, you name it.)
Now, animals, they leave their old and sick behind to become prey, right?
It IS the question then, when humans started to behave differently than animals, caring for the sick and the old who could NOT work for themselves, ADDING something to that natural law: "Except if you are too old or too sick: in the first case you worked long enough to deserve to be cared for and live off of other people's help, in the second case there's hope that the sick will become healthy again and make up for the amount of care put into them."
Right?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 04:10 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
Ok, right. What I meant is the Declaration of independence (that one started with the natural rights, right?):
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
"Endowed By Their Creator", by God, in other words, so it's the authority of GOD who gives those rights. They come from a higher authority, a higher Law. They are not intrinsic.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 04:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you think back to very early times of human history, you will find that in ancient times something like that would have been something like a NATURAL LAW: people who wouldn't work would starve, if alone (die automatically). People who could work, but wouldn't, would die automatically as well, since the tribe wouldn't very probably do anything for you, if you wouldn't do something for the tribe - and with no state or welfare, well. (Note that this is VERY different from arbitrarily declaring a specific form of life unworthy to live - the Blacks, the Jews, Lepers, Homosexuals, you name it.)
concentration camps were not only to kill people. many people were slaves and were killed once they weren't useful anymore.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 05:13 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:20, 02 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Usually RIGHTS are based on some Code of LAW. Governmental law, God's Law, Moral's Law, Universe's Law, ANY law, but A LAW. Because only if it's based on a law you can claim a RIGHT (you can claim whatever you want, but without a law to back it you cannot claim a RIGHT because LAW is what MAKES IT SO).
Rights are not based on any law man made up.
Both the US and German Constitutions acknowledge that human rights are in existence before the Consititions were written. Governments are formed to protect the rights of the people, not so that the governemnt can grant the people rights.
If everyone in the world died but you and me and food was scarce if I stole your food you would say that you were wronged even though there was no government to "grant you rights."
Quote:
However, that's a bit of a problem when you want to put those rights on something else than god - not everyone believes in that specific god or any god, and from a scientific and rational point of view it would be favorable to have something more palpable than god's millennia old words.
Sorry, but it is irratinoal to say that the univerese produced itself out of absolute nothing without a cause or that the univese is eternal. Both ideas have been disproven, to the dismay of atheists. Atheism is an irrational reigion. Anyone whoe says God does not exist has a great big scienctific problem.
Now, I don't claim rights are based on words God uttered or wods of God that were recorded in a book. In fact I've never met anyone who said human rights are based on the Bible. You seem to be rather confused about what rights coming from God means.
Quote:
So: for the intrinsic or natural right we are short an intrinsic or natural code of law/authority. Which means that these "rights" have no foundation except their own postulation. Saying that every human comes equipped with them, is, then, a PURELY HUMAN DEFINITION. Rights DECLARED absolute BY HUMANS. Not more.
It is sad that some people don't think they have a right to live unless a government beaurocrat says so. That Father Stalin (or whoever) is the granter of the right to liberty. That one only has the right not to be raped becasue the the State says so.
Government based on the concept that it is the State that grants rights to the people are invariably oppressive. That is no coincidence.
"Mommy, is it right to kill the Jews?"
"Yes, Johnny, Hitler says so. They have no right to live."
So those who say rights come from the State must say State approved mass murder is ok.
Sad.
Lol!!! So JJ, what is the basis of the State's "right" to "grant" rights????? You deny that there is such a thing as inate rights of people so the souce of the State's rights can't be the people. So what exactly is it that makes the State the dispenser of rights?
There would be no State if there were no people. How then could the State the the source of rights? There could be no people if there were no God. God is the source of rights.
Now, if you can't believe in God, that still leaves you with people having inate rights. Rights that exist independent of the State.
The people form governments to protect their inate rights, not to grant them rights.
Quote:
In practise, the law can obviously remove the right to live - death penalty does this. It says, that the perpetrator has forfeit the right to live with his doings, so in this case the "intrinsic right" is cancelled.
Yes, of course the intrinsic rigghts of a preditor can be forfeited, at least temporarily. He forfeits them when he begins to infringe on the intrinsic rights of others. Your right to liberty does not give you the right to take away the rights of others to live.
The most basic right of all is the right to live. I have no problem with a murderer, who doe s not respect the most basic right of all, being puot to death.
Rights and responsibilities come go together. I have a responsibility to be a "good steward" of my rights. To not abuse my freedom.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 05:36 PM |
|
|
@ Fauch
It's not that simple.
In Germany, between 1933 and 1945b there was a plethora of "camps": work camps, "educational work camps", concentration camps and annihilation camps. Moreover there was forced labor throughout the economy.
First thing is, come the war, forced labor was generally in use in Germany: people from the conquered countries would be brought to Germany, basically like the slaves in Rome after a winning campaign, to work in factories and in agriculture (harvesting and so on). Their work had a purpose, was important, and laborers were even skilled.
Then there were work camps, basically a sterner prison. This was basically for normal "criminals", you might say, and the hard labor was meant to make sure people wouldn't want to get caught again, something like a means to make people "honest". You know the term: honest bone-breaking work.
The same is true for educational work camps, only this time "educational" had the special meaning that it wasn't the normal crime that was puinished here, but the political crime: "wrong" ideas, "wrong" beliefs and so on, political opponents, "elements" who would oppose the system, but were deemed too harmless or important for death. Here was "work" something like a penalty as well. Of course, people were dying in work and educational work camps as well, but their death wasn't the purpose of those camps.
Lastly, the concentration camps (with a couple of them later on becoming annihilation camps).
In concentration camps you might say that "work" was meant to be deadly, at least in the long run. It didn't serve the purpose to keep prisoners alive or to produce something. Its only purpose was to kill them. Only later on, the SS had production facilities in the camps, so that the work within the camps would actually serve a purpose and even become important for the war, clashing somehow with their initial purpose to simply kill the prisoners.
HOWEVER, while you may think, that this was LAW in Germany - it wasn't. Most of those camps were secret. Work camps were legal and so on - you might say laws became more draconic -, but the really heavy things were not rightful because they were not backed up by the law. Or, to put it more correctly: laws were changed or added, that gave jurisdiction a lot more room to move. Moreover, a lot was done with "wrong labelling": you may call a prison a "holiday camp", and if the law states that this and that will be punished with "holiday camp", it sounds not all that bad, but then you didn't know you were in for a working holiday...
Law and rights in Nazi Germany is a very complex matter. If you want a bottom line, theory of state is about DIVISION of power, executive, legislative and jurisdiction, all three separate and independent. With executice and legislative merged into one force they slaved jurisdiction to that and made it a function of the combined executive/legislative, formally keeping it as an independent force, but in fact being swallowed.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Corribus
Ok, right. What I meant is the Declaration of independence (that one started with the natural rights, right?):
True, but the Declaration of Independence is not the basis of law in the US.
In any case, I'm not disagreeing with your overall line of argument, just the implication that the Law (Rights) in the US is (at least overtly) based on religion or any deity. One may of course argue that the US code of laws have some sort of judao-christian genesis, or that rights are ultimately granted by some sort of higher power, but it's really a separate, philosophical argument. Practically speaking, Rights in US Law are merely stated as axiomatic. They exist. Justification for their existence or any sort of source for their existence is left to the imagination, probably because the people who wrote the document realized that specifying what the rights were was more important than dwelling over where they come from. Additionally, had they offered any sort of justification for the Rights laid out in the Constitution, it would have provided a potential handhold to facilitate the denial of said rights through future legislation. In other words, by simply stating what the rights are, they didn't leave room for much argument.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 06:59 PM |
|
|
The Us were a colony of a country with lots of old traditions, a parliament not withstanding, so BRITISH right is what ruled the US before the declaration of independence.
If you go back in history to monarchy, the King was Superior Judge and got his power from God, the Church "vouching" for the rightfulness of the claim.
That changed with the Magna Carta which was inhibiting the power of the King (forced upon him by the Barons, mind you).
The Brits have no single constitution, it's basically ab ongoing work starting with the Magna Carta.
The Declaration of Independence is, in my opinion, the attempt to put the secession from Britain on a "legal" foundation, so that it wouldn't be treason or mutiny, but legal expression of the will of a people, which is important with a view on foreign help.
It's pretty logical to call on a higher authority than the Crown (which wasn't God's arm anymore like some centuries before).
I agree that this has nothing to do with the foundation regular law is based upon (which in practise is the people): All power comes from the people (at least that's stated in French and German constitutions, as far as I know).
Still there are or have been states or societies which claimed other authorities.
What I meant to say is, that a right needs an authority/law to base upon (no matter which one). I also don't think, we disagree here.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
