|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 12 2013 03:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:11 Toadesstern wrote:On April 12 2013 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 03:01 Toadesstern wrote:On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist. I'm not. You're sayig there is such a thing as a right that you are given no matter what, a right that no government has a right to alter no matter what because it stands above the government. A natural right would be something that is not part of due process because it's completly untouchable no matter what. If something is touchable by a government it's not above the government. Except it's not the government that does that. It's the people. Jurors. obviously I'm referring to a correct juristic system... There's never such a thing as the "government" acting on it's own like that to begin with, if it's working how it's supposed to. You're just argueing semantics here... Again. A natural right would be something that can not be taken away rightfully ever and that's just not the case. You have the death penalty, there are situations where it's okay to kill someone like self defense, everyone knows about the plank dilemma or whatever it's called in english and so on. No, I am not arguing semantics. Agents of the government have no legitimate power to kill anyone save in self-defense or defense of others, war, or by direction of a jury. In other words, by the direction of the people. You give up your right to life when you attack someone; until you stop, their right to defend themselves > your right to life. Natural rights cannot be taken away, you're right. They can be given up. I'm not much of a libertarian, but the non-aggression principle is right. The aggressor gives up his rights by his aggression, by attempting to take away the rights of others without just cause. You're just saying the same wrong thing over and over and maybe it will be right this time. Well, it won't.
I'm not saying the same thing over and over again. No a natural right can't be given up either. No a natural right against another natural right (attacker vs guy being threatened) is not ruling one or the ones right higher. That's completly made up. It is impossible to give up a natural right, that's the whole point of it.
A famous example: You have a railroad with a train incomming. You see 10 children playing on the rails and they don't see the train and won't make it out in time. You have the option to alter the trains route. On the alternative route is a 80 year old granny who's not making it out in time either if you choose to alter the route. Make the Granny whatever you want. Make it a caught rapist, make it a guy who's shooting one of the children with a gun RIGHT THIS MOMENT or already has. Both (all of their) rights are equal and you are not allowed to quantise it (à la "10 children > 1 granny > 1 rapist > 1 guy murdering right now"). You can't forfeit your right to live, at least according to my consitution.
+ Show Spoiler [Art 1, german] +(1) Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.
+ Show Spoiler [Art 1, english, according to google tr…] +(1) The dignity of man [note: it's basicly no torture and right to life] is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.
Maybe that's where the difference stems from seeing as the guy you quoted when I quoted you the first time came from germany as well. It's apparently more drastic/protected in germany because what you said just isn't the case and wouldn't ever be possible here.
|
On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity.
Apparently they don't teach very much at all in school. Because what I wrote was a demonstration that natural right cannot exist, and you took it to mean that they do exist. You go on to say that they cannot be given to us, and with your next breath you say that many people died to do exactly that.
Don't get me wrong. I like having rights. But do not for a second think they exist for any other reason than that other people want me to have them.
|
On April 12 2013 03:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:18 Shiori wrote:On April 12 2013 02:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class. Most people who've taken philosophy classes don't think there are crimes which deserve death. Not to derail, but it's ironic that you'd lament the lack of philosophical awareness in this thread when, to my knowledge, the vast majority of ethicists are against the death penalty. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ironySurely the majority of ethicists would not make such a double mistake as appealing to both authority and majority in the same paragraph. Show nested quote +I think I should ask you where did you read your philosophy. A lot of non-marxist philosophers completely refuse existence of rights as basis for ethics. All those constitutions and laws actually show that all those rights are society-given, not god-given. All those rights have myriad of exceptions (like death penalty for some crimes that you already agreed exist). Rights are just generalized ethical rules that have much deeper justification and we are using them instead of that deeper ethical justification because they are easy to use in everyday life. It is simpler to follow simple rules (rights) instead of carefully analyzing every situation and doing ethical calculus. But as our societies get more complicated and more sophisticated and more wealthy we introduce more and more exceptions to many of these rights as we can finally identify situations where application of those rules (rights) are actually not ethical. Kant, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Aquinas, "Publius," etc. I don't have much preference for more modern thinkers. And your paragraph is an excellent example why I do not. You can point to the fact that it was men who wrote and so it is not God-given or natural but a construct of man, but the men who wrote it did not think that. They were aiming for a higher ideal. You can say complications create exceptions and things get turned on their head, and you can do so by breaking it down structurally, and what do you get? Less happiness, less freedom. What you get is a sick society that eats itself. Our society today. I'm still stuck back at the American and French Revolutions, I have little truck with the advancements - if you can call them that - in philosophy in general and ethics in particular since then. I'll find more worth to humanity in a single page of the Federalist Papers than I will in positive prose that does not support its normative conclusions.
It's you who made the fallacy, not me. If you want people to take philosophy 90, then it stands to reason that you value the opinion of professional philosophers, hence the relevance of the opinions of ethicists. An appeal to authority/majority is acceptable if it is justified and relevant.
|
On April 12 2013 03:31 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity. Apparently they don't teach very much at all in school. Because what I wrote was a demonstration that natural right cannot exist, and you took it to mean that they do exist. You go on to say that they cannot be given to us, and with your next breath you say that many people died to do exactly that. Don't get me wrong. I like having rights. But do not for a second think they exist for any other reason than that other people want me to have them.
I'm on the fence here.
On the one hand, no, rights as they are commonly understood, are a farce. They are not a shield against guns or swords, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be. Saying, "It's my right" without the means to back it up, is ridiculous.
However, I've always viewed "Rights" in a way which runs contrary to their idiomatic usage. That is to say: To observe a "Right" is to simply observe what IS.
Things like Freedom of Speech, or Right to a Fair and Open Trial are not barriers, they are things which, when not present, cause men to rebel and to grumble and eventually burst into a violent conflagration (which isn't good for anyone since such violence is perpetrated INTERNALLY on a society by itself). Rights are real, because "rights" are pressure valves which reflect a given cultures values.
Western "Rights" should not, and cannot be applied to non-Western societies without destroying those cultures. Western "Rights" are exactly that, Rights for Westerners; codes of conduct within a society. By this definition, if Western Culture was an Enlightenment culture, then Rights are indeed derived from nature insofar as Westerners understand nature.
To argue otherwise is silly.
Essentially, to reject the foundational argument for rights in Western society is to reject Western Society. You are part of the problem, one of the symptoms of decline. Social organization is emergent (which is to say natural). If Westerners created "Rights" as part of their social organization, then I see no problems with the foundational arguments.
|
I'm not saying the same thing over and over again. No a natural right can't be given up either. No a natural right against another natural right (attacker vs guy being threatened) is not ruling one or the ones right higher. That's completly made up. It is impossible to give up a natural right, that's the whole point of it.
Simply wrong.
A famous example: You have a railroad with a train incomming. You see 10 children playing on the rails and they don't see the train and won't make it out in time. You have the option to alter the trains route. On the alternative route is a 80 year old granny who's not making it out in time either if you choose to alter the route. Make the Granny whatever you want. Make it a caught rapist, make it a guy who's shooting one of the children with a gun RIGHT THIS MOMENT or already has. Both (all of their) rights are equal and you are not allowed to quantise it (à la "10 children > 1 granny > 1 rapist > 1 guy murdering right now"). You can't forfeit your right to live, at least according to my consitution.
So basically, natural rights don't exist because acts of God can create a situation where there is an ethical dilemma.
Well, that's still wrong, but at least it's an example.
Apparently they don't teach very much at all in school. Because what I wrote was a demonstration that natural right cannot exist, and you took it to mean that they do exist. You go on to say that they cannot be given to us, and with your next breath you say that many people died to do exactly that.
I didn't say given to us. And if I did that was the wrong word to use. Many people died for the ideal because they believed that it was in danger precisely for the reasons you say.
Don't get me wrong. I like having rights. But do not for a second think they exist for any other reason than that other people want me to have them.
And that's why you're more likely to lose them than I am.
The reason this conversation is going nowhere is that this place is a post-religious/spiritual community and that element of humanity is either dismissed or treated with angry contempt. And it is precisely that element of the human character that what I am saying derived from.
|
On April 12 2013 03:42 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 03:18 Shiori wrote:On April 12 2013 02:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class. Most people who've taken philosophy classes don't think there are crimes which deserve death. Not to derail, but it's ironic that you'd lament the lack of philosophical awareness in this thread when, to my knowledge, the vast majority of ethicists are against the death penalty. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ironySurely the majority of ethicists would not make such a double mistake as appealing to both authority and majority in the same paragraph. I think I should ask you where did you read your philosophy. A lot of non-marxist philosophers completely refuse existence of rights as basis for ethics. All those constitutions and laws actually show that all those rights are society-given, not god-given. All those rights have myriad of exceptions (like death penalty for some crimes that you already agreed exist). Rights are just generalized ethical rules that have much deeper justification and we are using them instead of that deeper ethical justification because they are easy to use in everyday life. It is simpler to follow simple rules (rights) instead of carefully analyzing every situation and doing ethical calculus. But as our societies get more complicated and more sophisticated and more wealthy we introduce more and more exceptions to many of these rights as we can finally identify situations where application of those rules (rights) are actually not ethical. Kant, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Aquinas, "Publius," etc. I don't have much preference for more modern thinkers. And your paragraph is an excellent example why I do not. You can point to the fact that it was men who wrote and so it is not God-given or natural but a construct of man, but the men who wrote it did not think that. They were aiming for a higher ideal. You can say complications create exceptions and things get turned on their head, and you can do so by breaking it down structurally, and what do you get? Less happiness, less freedom. What you get is a sick society that eats itself. Our society today. I'm still stuck back at the American and French Revolutions, I have little truck with the advancements - if you can call them that - in philosophy in general and ethics in particular since then. I'll find more worth to humanity in a single page of the Federalist Papers than I will in positive prose that does not support its normative conclusions. It's you who made the fallacy, not me. If you want people to take philosophy 90, then it stands to reason that you value the opinion of professional philosophers, hence the relevance of the opinions of ethicists. An appeal to authority/majority is acceptable if it is justified and relevant.
As I explained, admittedly before you made this post I am quoting, no, I do not value the opinion of professional philosophers. Or rather, modern philosophers.
And sadly, no. It is you who made the fallacies. It is not relevant here, as you admitted yourself, and as such, not justified either.
|
On April 12 2013 03:47 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:31 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity. Apparently they don't teach very much at all in school. Because what I wrote was a demonstration that natural right cannot exist, and you took it to mean that they do exist. You go on to say that they cannot be given to us, and with your next breath you say that many people died to do exactly that. Don't get me wrong. I like having rights. But do not for a second think they exist for any other reason than that other people want me to have them. I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, no, rights as they are commonly understood, are a farce. They are not a shield against guns or swords, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be. Saying, "It's my right" without the means to back it up, is ridiculous. However, I've always viewed "Rights" in a way which runs contrary to their idiomatic usage. That is to say: To observe a "Right" is to simply observe what IS. Things like Freedom of Speech, or Right to a Fair and Open Trial are not barriers, they are things which, when not present, cause men to rebel and to grumble and eventually burst into a violent conflagration (which isn't good for anyone since such violence is perpetrated INTERNALLY on a society by itself). Rights are real, because "rights" are pressure valves which reflect a given cultures values. Western "Rights" should not, and cannot be applied to non-Western societies without destroying those cultures. Western "Rights" are exactly that, Rights for Westerners; codes of conduct within a society. By this definition, if Western Culture was an Enlightenment culture, then Rights are indeed derived from nature insofar as Westerners understand nature. To argue otherwise is silly. Essentially, to reject the foundational argument for rights in Western society is to reject Western Society. You are part of the problem, one of the symptoms of decline.
This is what happens when you base your understanding of Western Society exclusively on the readings of people like Spengler. Western Society is not a monolith; it does not turn upon any singular argument as justification. Someone can critique the notion of natural vs legal rights without dancing upon the ashes of Western Society, no matter how many you times you read Der Untergang des Abendlandes.
|
On April 12 2013 03:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not saying the same thing over and over again. No a natural right can't be given up either. No a natural right against another natural right (attacker vs guy being threatened) is not ruling one or the ones right higher. That's completly made up. It is impossible to give up a natural right, that's the whole point of it. Simply wrong. Show nested quote +A famous example: You have a railroad with a train incomming. You see 10 children playing on the rails and they don't see the train and won't make it out in time. You have the option to alter the trains route. On the alternative route is a 80 year old granny who's not making it out in time either if you choose to alter the route. Make the Granny whatever you want. Make it a caught rapist, make it a guy who's shooting one of the children with a gun RIGHT THIS MOMENT or already has. Both (all of their) rights are equal and you are not allowed to quantise it (à la "10 children > 1 granny > 1 rapist > 1 guy murdering right now"). You can't forfeit your right to live, at least according to my consitution. So basically, natural rights don't exist because acts of God can create a situation where there is an ethical dilemma. Well, that's still wrong, but at least it's an example. [...]
About the first thing: No, for me it's right. It apparently isn't that way in the US, doesn't mean it's like that everywhere and a lot of people who aren't from the US seem to disagree with you. That's why I said the right to life is the only thing that comes close to a natural right and that I'd be fine labeling it that way (in every country that doesn't have a death penalty), because every other "problem" stems from problems between the same right for different people. That obviously can't ever be solved.
About the second thing: You still don't get it... A natural right would be something that NOONE, no matter if government or a group of judges (citizens) or you yourself can touch or alter because it stands above everything else. There is no such thing. It's not about someone dying. It's about the fact that you are not allowed to make a decision about that no matter if you're a government or a bunch of judges. You're perfectly fine to restricting someone freedoms (thus it not being a natural right) by putting someone into jail as a punishement / because you consider him dangerous. The reason the right to life is the only candidate for a natural right is because that's not possible for most nations.
Edit: Oh yeah... just realized it's going way too offtopic. My bad, will stop posting about this.
|
On April 12 2013 03:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:47 Kimaker wrote:On April 12 2013 03:31 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity. Apparently they don't teach very much at all in school. Because what I wrote was a demonstration that natural right cannot exist, and you took it to mean that they do exist. You go on to say that they cannot be given to us, and with your next breath you say that many people died to do exactly that. Don't get me wrong. I like having rights. But do not for a second think they exist for any other reason than that other people want me to have them. I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, no, rights as they are commonly understood, are a farce. They are not a shield against guns or swords, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be. Saying, "It's my right" without the means to back it up, is ridiculous. However, I've always viewed "Rights" in a way which runs contrary to their idiomatic usage. That is to say: To observe a "Right" is to simply observe what IS. Things like Freedom of Speech, or Right to a Fair and Open Trial are not barriers, they are things which, when not present, cause men to rebel and to grumble and eventually burst into a violent conflagration (which isn't good for anyone since such violence is perpetrated INTERNALLY on a society by itself). Rights are real, because "rights" are pressure valves which reflect a given cultures values. Western "Rights" should not, and cannot be applied to non-Western societies without destroying those cultures. Western "Rights" are exactly that, Rights for Westerners; codes of conduct within a society. By this definition, if Western Culture was an Enlightenment culture, then Rights are indeed derived from nature insofar as Westerners understand nature. To argue otherwise is silly. Essentially, to reject the foundational argument for rights in Western society is to reject Western Society. You are part of the problem, one of the symptoms of decline. This is what happens when you base your understanding of Western Society exclusively on the readings of people like Spengler. Western Society is not a monolith; it does not turn upon any singular argument as justification. Someone can critique the notion of natural vs legal rights without dancing upon the ashes of Western Society, no matter how many you times you read Der Untergang des Abendlandes.
I agree. I should have specified Anglo-American Culture.
My mistake.
To clarify: If there is a conflict, it is because different segments of the population alter at different rates (or not at all) in terms of social acceptability and preferred organization. Basically what we perceive as being "American Culture" literally has two different meanings to two different groups and each views the other as the antithesis.
I'm for peaceful separation. Sadly, it'll never be allowed to happen.
|
I am uncertain as to why we're talking about natural rights....
|
On April 12 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I am uncertain as to why we're talking about natural rights....
They form the basis for the pro-gun argument. It's admittedly a bit tangential....but at least we're getting to the heart of the matter this time around.
|
On April 12 2013 03:58 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:57 farvacola wrote:On April 12 2013 03:47 Kimaker wrote:On April 12 2013 03:31 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:
[quote]
If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity. Apparently they don't teach very much at all in school. Because what I wrote was a demonstration that natural right cannot exist, and you took it to mean that they do exist. You go on to say that they cannot be given to us, and with your next breath you say that many people died to do exactly that. Don't get me wrong. I like having rights. But do not for a second think they exist for any other reason than that other people want me to have them. I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, no, rights as they are commonly understood, are a farce. They are not a shield against guns or swords, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be. Saying, "It's my right" without the means to back it up, is ridiculous. However, I've always viewed "Rights" in a way which runs contrary to their idiomatic usage. That is to say: To observe a "Right" is to simply observe what IS. Things like Freedom of Speech, or Right to a Fair and Open Trial are not barriers, they are things which, when not present, cause men to rebel and to grumble and eventually burst into a violent conflagration (which isn't good for anyone since such violence is perpetrated INTERNALLY on a society by itself). Rights are real, because "rights" are pressure valves which reflect a given cultures values. Western "Rights" should not, and cannot be applied to non-Western societies without destroying those cultures. Western "Rights" are exactly that, Rights for Westerners; codes of conduct within a society. By this definition, if Western Culture was an Enlightenment culture, then Rights are indeed derived from nature insofar as Westerners understand nature. To argue otherwise is silly. Essentially, to reject the foundational argument for rights in Western society is to reject Western Society. You are part of the problem, one of the symptoms of decline. This is what happens when you base your understanding of Western Society exclusively on the readings of people like Spengler. Western Society is not a monolith; it does not turn upon any singular argument as justification. Someone can critique the notion of natural vs legal rights without dancing upon the ashes of Western Society, no matter how many you times you read Der Untergang des Abendlandes. I agree. I should have specified Anglo-American Culture. My mistake.
Well, that is certainly an order less troublesome, but I still think it runs into problems. What are we to make of Locke and Bentham's disagreement if not incorporate it as fundamental to the Anglo-American debate over legal vs natural rights?
|
On April 12 2013 01:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:24 Cutlery wrote:On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity. I disagree in principle, because it is the society which you live in that gives you rights. Had society given you other rights, you would have thought of them as being as natural as the sunlight. Say you were born naturally free. Far away from any other person. Just you and your freedom (no, I'm serious). You live in and live off nature. There is plant life and vegetation, and animals etc. You make it by your own and you are free. No one to answer to or no one to even suggest what you should do. You have no rights. But you have freedom. My point is that freedom is not a right outside of society. Also, back to the hermit in the woods. Where does gun policy become a right? Poor guy is free, but has no guns. Obviously there can be freedom without guns. I'm not sure if I'm "picking it apart" or simply pointing out that the rights you talk about are rights you have taken, and in fact weren't born with. Then one could argue that society is part of nature, and everything you do and steal and take is simply you using the tools that nature gave you, and so even stealing is completely natural. But would you call it a right? The right to steal. Well, society puts you in jail (potentially). But you still have the "right" to freedom to steal, to put it like that. If nature gave you even one right, it must have given you all of them. Also, this has nothing to do with school. Edit: Also, why do you say that many people have died for these rights, which you claim that no one can take away. What's true for one continent isn't universally true and a reflection of Gods will. What if I told you that your right to freedom is indirectly killing people on other continents? It does have a lot to do with the shitty education in most Western countries not just the US. To have such a cynical reductionist and above all else narrow worldview is a failure of education. So, according to you, the only thing real is the state of nature, and everything else is just a construct. Well, human society isn't built on that idea. Other societies that aren't built on the idea of natural rights that currently exist right now particularly Muslim societies are in upheaval precisely because the people want those rights. Also, universal, inalienable rights are universal and inalienable. Moral relativism and "what's true for one continent isn't universally true" are a bane on civilization. It's not about whether a government can physically strip those rights away. It's about your view of government and what it can and cannot do and why. Natural rights exist independent of authority; they exist within and from the individual. If a government denies them, it has no right to existence. I don't understand your question. Please explain.
I honestly think we use the word(s) natural (and nature) waaay different.
And if we're not to use moral relativism; what natural "right" or attribute was given that you may claim otherwise. I'm mostly seeing a bunch of assumptions from you, and conclusions. I do not feel you answer what ever questions I bring up, you simply rake them aside and blame my education. I'm not sure why asking questions is bad, and a good teacher would hopefully have had an answer but, I really don't see where my education comes in. I gave this all 10 minutes of thought, asked some questions and brought up some counter arguments as to why rights can be natural or not. Not that I have a strong belief either way, I simply do not see what you see. And the more you write the more I'm left questioning what exactly the basis for your claims are.
Anyway, back to my physics homework. My schooling has been about math and physics, which in fact is quite universal. Turns out physics is the same in Norway as it is in the US, where I currently go to school. I bet they learn the same physics in India or Pakistan or Australia.
Edit: Oh, one example to the sentence I tossed in and you asked about: Churches using their free speech to teach Africans to not use condoms, so aids spreads faster. Just because you have the "god given right" to meddle (free speech), it's not always virtuous or right/correct to use that right.
Edit. I'm slightly confused about your comments on the muslims. They are all about the "God-given rights", which you have used interchangeably with natural rights. Tho' it might not matter, I can look past minor inconsistencies as we seem to have moved away from God anyway.
|
On April 12 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I am uncertain as to why we're talking about natural rights....
because its a fun smokescreen to use opinions in the place of facts so that you cant lose an argument. who cares if countries with more guns have more gun deaths, as long as in your opinion you have the right to this, that, or the other, we should all keep shooting each other.
|
On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 02:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:27 Nachtwind wrote:On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid. Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer]. No, you didn't misunderstand the language at all. You just can't comprehend the cultural meaning. He didn't misunderstand, he just places less value in what you value. To him, if you need guns to maintain something--then you don't really have it. You feel that guns are simply a show, that you do have it, and a symbol of you having it is the gun. And he's asking why you should have such a dangerous symbol that can hurt people, and you're saying that it keeps your rights safe. And he's asking "are your rights unsafe? are they in danger? do you really have them?" And you're going "you just can't comprehend the cultural meaning." Nope. And if that's what he believes, it's even more silly than I thought. Do I really not have this computer because I need electricity to run it? Guns are not a show. They are not a symbol. They are guns. I am not saying that in response to his questions. I answered his questions, he still didn't get it, so I chalk it up to a cultural difference that he cannot comprehend. Private ownership of guns is both a right and a safeguard of rights. Are our rights unsafe? Are they in danger? It doesn't matter one way or the other. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them. I don't have a gun--does that mean I don't have rights? If the price of rights is having the vigilance to keep them and I don't have a gun--am I to assume I have no rights? EDIT: If guns are just your property and you don't believe the US Government should be able to define what property you can or can't have I understand that--but its this whole "keep vigilance" thing that i believe is confusing people. Why would not having a gun mean you don't have rights? I don't own a gun, I don't think I have no rights. I believe (no, wait, I know) I already agreed with a long list of behaviors that can be used before violence (with a gun or not) to safeguard rights - so why are you asking these questions? Why is it always the same questions, and why are they always so dumb? If some people think that the author and guarantor of their rights is the government, they can go do that. I do not and tens of millions of other Americans don't either. My rights don't come from the government, the government's privileges come from me. If I don't do my own part to keep them from being abridged, chances are someday there won't be enough people left who care enough to pick up the slack for people who don't do their own part and our freedoms will waste away. And when all the things we've constructed to resolve disputes - personal, political (domestic and international) - without violence fails, that's why people should have a right to a gun if they wish to have one. World War I was supposed to be The War to End All Wars. The end of the Cold War was supposed to be The End of History. Nothing is guaranteed. Since you don't read your own posts, let me share. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them. Vigilance is the price of keeping them--do you know what that means? That without vigilance, you don't keep them. I am literally disagreeing with the very words you are saying. I don't own a gun, which means I lack vigilance, which means I have no rights. But if you don't need a gun to maintain vigilance--then you don't need a gun at all to maintain rights. The government is not a separate entity from the people--it is one with the people. It is our fellow citizens tasked with the daily operations of maintaining a country. They handle roads, mail, power lines, teach students, drive a bus, chase thieves, put out fires, etc... I don't need a gun to help maintain those rights of my life. Nor should I need a gun to maintain vigilance over the other parts of my life. Show nested quote +To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist.
Due process trumps natural rights? Just asking, man...
|
On April 12 2013 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:01 Toadesstern wrote:On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist. I'm not. You're sayig there is such a thing as a right that you are given no matter what, a right that no government has a right to alter no matter what because it stands above the government. A natural right would be something that is not part of due process because it's completly untouchable no matter what. If something is touchable by a government it's not above the government. Except it's not the government that does that. It's the people. Jurors.
People are not the government? People "judge" away natural rights? Then can they "judge" away other natural rights, and why not the right to own a gun while we're at it? ..More questions, sorry?
|
On April 12 2013 03:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:11 Toadesstern wrote:On April 12 2013 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 03:01 Toadesstern wrote:On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist. I'm not. You're sayig there is such a thing as a right that you are given no matter what, a right that no government has a right to alter no matter what because it stands above the government. A natural right would be something that is not part of due process because it's completly untouchable no matter what. If something is touchable by a government it's not above the government. Except it's not the government that does that. It's the people. Jurors. obviously I'm referring to a correct juristic system... There's never such a thing as the "government" acting on it's own like that to begin with, if it's working how it's supposed to. You're just argueing semantics here... Again. A natural right would be something that can not be taken away rightfully ever and that's just not the case. You have the death penalty, there are situations where it's okay to kill someone like self defense, everyone knows about the plank dilemma or whatever it's called in english and so on. No, I am not arguing semantics. Agents of the government have no legitimate power to kill anyone save in self-defense or defense of others, war, or by direction of a jury. In other words, by the direction of the people. You give up your right to life when you attack someone; until you stop, their right to defend themselves > your right to life. Natural rights cannot be taken away, you're right. They can be given up. I'm not much of a libertarian, but the non-aggression principle is right. The aggressor gives up his rights by his aggression, by attempting to take away the rights of others without just cause. You're just saying the same wrong thing over and over and maybe it will be right this time. Well, it won't.
Honestly I do not disagree with this.
Death penalty is not covered by this argument, self defence however is. And this also doesn't speak to whether the rights given up by 'aggressing' are natural or not.
|
I don't think you can make the case that carrying a gun is a natural right. A gun is not necessary for life. You (and by extension, society) can argue that it is a means to protect your life; that they are an addendum to the natural right of life deemed appropriate by society. However, you (and by extension, society) can also make the argument that allowing guns infringes on the rights of others.
Both are valid arguments, and deciding between the two is up to society. That there can be valid arguments made on either side excludes gun ownership from the realm of natural rights.
|
On April 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:58 Kimaker wrote:On April 12 2013 03:57 farvacola wrote:On April 12 2013 03:47 Kimaker wrote:On April 12 2013 03:31 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me.
The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity. Apparently they don't teach very much at all in school. Because what I wrote was a demonstration that natural right cannot exist, and you took it to mean that they do exist. You go on to say that they cannot be given to us, and with your next breath you say that many people died to do exactly that. Don't get me wrong. I like having rights. But do not for a second think they exist for any other reason than that other people want me to have them. I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, no, rights as they are commonly understood, are a farce. They are not a shield against guns or swords, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be. Saying, "It's my right" without the means to back it up, is ridiculous. However, I've always viewed "Rights" in a way which runs contrary to their idiomatic usage. That is to say: To observe a "Right" is to simply observe what IS. Things like Freedom of Speech, or Right to a Fair and Open Trial are not barriers, they are things which, when not present, cause men to rebel and to grumble and eventually burst into a violent conflagration (which isn't good for anyone since such violence is perpetrated INTERNALLY on a society by itself). Rights are real, because "rights" are pressure valves which reflect a given cultures values. Western "Rights" should not, and cannot be applied to non-Western societies without destroying those cultures. Western "Rights" are exactly that, Rights for Westerners; codes of conduct within a society. By this definition, if Western Culture was an Enlightenment culture, then Rights are indeed derived from nature insofar as Westerners understand nature. To argue otherwise is silly. Essentially, to reject the foundational argument for rights in Western society is to reject Western Society. You are part of the problem, one of the symptoms of decline. This is what happens when you base your understanding of Western Society exclusively on the readings of people like Spengler. Western Society is not a monolith; it does not turn upon any singular argument as justification. Someone can critique the notion of natural vs legal rights without dancing upon the ashes of Western Society, no matter how many you times you read Der Untergang des Abendlandes. I agree. I should have specified Anglo-American Culture. My mistake. Well, that is certainly an order less troublesome, but I still think it runs into problems. What are we to make of Locke and Bentham's disagreement if not incorporate it as fundamental to the Anglo-American debate over legal vs natural rights?
I view the entire argument as a matter of semantics.
They both inevitably derive from nature, it's just a question of ordering them. The practice would, under either premise, have been approximately the same. It's just that American society chose to use Locke's argument.
Edit: (probably because it was shorter in terms of the mental dots you had to connect)
I equate the whole of humanity's ability to disassociate from "reality" through belief and stories and "artificial" social constructs (really they're all natural) as a natural part of being human. It's just a matter of degrees in perspective; tall people and short people and round people and skinny, if you will.
On April 12 2013 04:19 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I am uncertain as to why we're talking about natural rights.... because its a fun smokescreen to use opinions in the place of facts so that you cant lose an argument. who cares if countries with more guns have more gun deaths, as long as in your opinion you have the right to this, that, or the other, we should all keep shooting each other.
See, now you're getting it. Well done. 
To my fellow Pro-gun thread goers? Jigs up fellas. We're fucked.
|
On April 12 2013 04:19 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I am uncertain as to why we're talking about natural rights.... because its a fun smokescreen to use opinions in the place of facts so that you cant lose an argument. who cares if countries with more guns have more gun deaths, as long as in your opinion you have the right to this, that, or the other, we should all keep shooting each other.
Speaking as the loudmouth on the "guns are bad" group--I think its silly to assume owning a gun = shooting someone for the same reason I think that owning a bottle of wine =/= drunk driver.
Wine and alcohol does have regulations, as do guns, to prevent the bad seeds from ruining things. Its to my understanding that this discussion should be about the level of regulation to be implemented. Constitutionally--guns are an American thing and so a gun ban is off the table.
BUT!
There is a line between too much regulation and not enough regulation. Where that line is should be the focus of this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
