Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
I'm not calling none mad, I say they are wrong.
edit: you previous post is un-answerable. Lot of logic error in it. I don't want to discuss with someone that doesn't see the difference from a right (and a legal person) and something different-
If we follow your view even a dog or a cow is a person..
(edited)
edit: you previous post is un-answerable. Lot of logic error in it. I don't want to discuss with someone that doesn't see the difference from a right (and a legal person) and something different-
If we follow your view even a dog or a cow is a person..
(edited)
I'm not calling none mad, I say they are wrong.
Then why did you say that people can answer you that you are mad when you are wrong?
you previous post is un-answerable.
Yes. With how you want to answer it, it is un-answerable.
Lot of logic error in it. I don't want to discuss with someone that doesn't see the difference from a right (and a legal person) and something different-
If we follow your view even a dog or a cow is a person..
First, you don't say anything about the logic error because you can't find it.
Second, this conclusion about logic comes from a person who wrote "fetus has not HIS rights (right is something you can activate, a fetus can't do anything)". So, following your logic we can kill you in your sleep. Right is something you can activate and a sleeping person can't do that. Sorry, el pupe. You shouldn't have fallen asleep without locking your door.
Third, again, you refuse to discuss with 1/6 of Earth's population. Good luck with that.
(edited)
Then why did you say that people can answer you that you are mad when you are wrong?
you previous post is un-answerable.
Yes. With how you want to answer it, it is un-answerable.
Lot of logic error in it. I don't want to discuss with someone that doesn't see the difference from a right (and a legal person) and something different-
If we follow your view even a dog or a cow is a person..
First, you don't say anything about the logic error because you can't find it.
Second, this conclusion about logic comes from a person who wrote "fetus has not HIS rights (right is something you can activate, a fetus can't do anything)". So, following your logic we can kill you in your sleep. Right is something you can activate and a sleeping person can't do that. Sorry, el pupe. You shouldn't have fallen asleep without locking your door.
Third, again, you refuse to discuss with 1/6 of Earth's population. Good luck with that.
(edited)
1 fetus is not a person (it's not, ot's a fact, you can say it is a potential person, but still..)
A fetus is a future person. A fetus is not equal to a rock.
2 fetus has not HIS rights (right is something you can activate, a fetus can't do anything)
Yes he does. Even people who are in favor of abortion admit this by putting a limit to the moment until which you can have an abortion.
Does a person who is in vegetative state have rights? For me he does although he cannot activate anything. If I follow your logic with consistency, a person in vegetative state has the same rights like a rock.
3 is useless to make a rule you are not able to enforce (where abortion is illegal abortion is done in secret, with sanitary risk for womans)
It's not because a rule will be broken that the rule should not be made.
A fetus is a future person. A fetus is not equal to a rock.
2 fetus has not HIS rights (right is something you can activate, a fetus can't do anything)
Yes he does. Even people who are in favor of abortion admit this by putting a limit to the moment until which you can have an abortion.
Does a person who is in vegetative state have rights? For me he does although he cannot activate anything. If I follow your logic with consistency, a person in vegetative state has the same rights like a rock.
3 is useless to make a rule you are not able to enforce (where abortion is illegal abortion is done in secret, with sanitary risk for womans)
It's not because a rule will be broken that the rule should not be made.
I want only to ask why someone claim that this is a business to be ruled?
Why not to leave freedom to people to do what they like more.
So me killing some random dude in the street shouldn't be a business to be ruled?
It should be ruled because it's part of the 'basic agreement' which makes society possible (if not, we end up in anarchy).
Why not to leave freedom to people to do what they like more.
So me killing some random dude in the street shouldn't be a business to be ruled?
It should be ruled because it's part of the 'basic agreement' which makes society possible (if not, we end up in anarchy).
i will respond only to this question.
the rest I just said, no time to repeat it against rethorical argumentations
Does a person who is in vegetative state have rights?
NO, his parents have rights.
moreover the state provide a set of rule that have the objective to please the rest of people that would feel bad about some strange treathment done to a man invegetative status.
But still no entity without the ability to act voluntarily has what we call a RIGHT.
We make rules for the "rights of animals", but animals hasn't got any RIGHT, we have the right to see animals treathed the way rules say. It's different!
the rest I just said, no time to repeat it against rethorical argumentations
Does a person who is in vegetative state have rights?
NO, his parents have rights.
moreover the state provide a set of rule that have the objective to please the rest of people that would feel bad about some strange treathment done to a man invegetative status.
But still no entity without the ability to act voluntarily has what we call a RIGHT.
We make rules for the "rights of animals", but animals hasn't got any RIGHT, we have the right to see animals treathed the way rules say. It's different!
It's not because a rule will be broken that the rule should not be made.
[:P]
I'm really tired that my pen continue to fall from my table, let's make a rule against it. It must be forbidden!!!
[:P]
[:P]
I'm really tired that my pen continue to fall from my table, let's make a rule against it. It must be forbidden!!!
[:P]
NO, his parents have rights.
Some rights, yes. But the person in vegetative state has still some rights. For instance, if the guy made a document (before being in vegetative state) that after he's dead, he wants to be cremated, then that is his right and it should be respected (whatever his parents who are the 'owners' of their child's rights want).
Some rights, yes. But the person in vegetative state has still some rights. For instance, if the guy made a document (before being in vegetative state) that after he's dead, he wants to be cremated, then that is his right and it should be respected (whatever his parents who are the 'owners' of their child's rights want).
I'm really tired that my pen continue to fall from my table, let's make a rule against it. It must be forbidden!!!
You cannot forbid a thing to do something. You can forbid a human to do something. Protecting human lives is a basic condition in society. You will agree with this. We just differ on what human life is.
You cannot forbid a thing to do something. You can forbid a human to do something. Protecting human lives is a basic condition in society. You will agree with this. We just differ on what human life is.
But the person in vegetative state has still some rights
no.
in this discussion the word "right" is the focus.
If we intend it correctly there's no way a vegetative state man has rights.
For instance, if the guy made a document (before being in vegetative state) that after he's dead, he wants to be cremated, then that is his right and it should be respected
this is the perfect example, why do we do what he wrote?
because he has the right to act for having his words respected? no
because the rest of people want those words to be respected (for some reason that are self-evident).
Who's right are we respecting? OUR!
PS: when I read what I wrote I see a lot of english errors, please escuse me..
(edited)
no.
in this discussion the word "right" is the focus.
If we intend it correctly there's no way a vegetative state man has rights.
For instance, if the guy made a document (before being in vegetative state) that after he's dead, he wants to be cremated, then that is his right and it should be respected
this is the perfect example, why do we do what he wrote?
because he has the right to act for having his words respected? no
because the rest of people want those words to be respected (for some reason that are self-evident).
Who's right are we respecting? OUR!
PS: when I read what I wrote I see a lot of english errors, please escuse me..
(edited)
this is the perfect example, why do we do what he wrote?
Because he has the moral right to determine what must happen with him when he's dead.
Because he has the moral right to determine what must happen with him when he's dead.
Because he has the moral right to determine what must happen with him when he's dead.
translated:
because the rest of people, that have real rights and strenght to act them, decides they prefer to do what he wrote.
translated:
because the rest of people, that have real rights and strenght to act them, decides they prefer to do what he wrote.
As long as you refuse to make a difference between moral right and legal rights, this is useless.
well I'm doing exactly it.
legal rights exists,
moral right not (we can call them desires if you prefer).
legal rights exists,
moral right not (we can call them desires if you prefer).
moral right not
Ergo an ideological or political discussion is useless with you. I'll keep that in mind ;-)
Ergo an ideological or political discussion is useless with you. I'll keep that in mind ;-)
Your argumentation is so stupid that it hurts.
Here, I will show you. Let's test your logic on 2 examples:
1. A child is put into an induced comma by doctors for medical reasons. His mother gives him a lethal injection.
2. A child is conceived. His mother makes an abortion.
How can we apply your logic differently to these 2 different examples? In both cases, all these children need is time. The 1st child even needs medical care while the 2nd one doesn't (well, not necessarily). Why would the 1st child deserve the needed time while the 2nd one would not?
I bet you cannot answer this simple question without changing your stupid logic.
Here, I will show you. Let's test your logic on 2 examples:
1. A child is put into an induced comma by doctors for medical reasons. His mother gives him a lethal injection.
2. A child is conceived. His mother makes an abortion.
How can we apply your logic differently to these 2 different examples? In both cases, all these children need is time. The 1st child even needs medical care while the 2nd one doesn't (well, not necessarily). Why would the 1st child deserve the needed time while the 2nd one would not?
I bet you cannot answer this simple question without changing your stupid logic.
ok, end of fair discussion, we restart with rethorical army.
The sense of my speech is quite plain, if you twist words you can turn them as you like, but it doesn't make sense at all.
I'll repeat it, the error is in giving the name "right" to something that can't be a RIGHT.
Only alive, conscious and able person have rights.
The rest of beings no.
The sense of my speech is quite plain, if you twist words you can turn them as you like, but it doesn't make sense at all.
I'll repeat it, the error is in giving the name "right" to something that can't be a RIGHT.
Only alive, conscious and able person have rights.
The rest of beings no.