Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
Your arguments still don't sound valid for me... In your example, you took "right" word and me i would take "need" word... Useless discussion as same discussion if you told me God exists and me told you it is not.
Right is not the same as need here. Johnny has the right to kill the tiger because humans are masters of animals on Earth. Still, he doesn't need to kill the tiger to survive. He can also accept that he simply has less rights (freedom of moving around the island) and be more careful about avoiding the tiger's territory. Killing the tiger is his right but not his need.
Here, i can feel a problem into your argumentation... You talked about default natural rights for animals and plants... Ok, so as far as i know no one could ever have any communication with animals and plants to konw what they think, if they think, what they want and so on, you, human impose your thought upon those lives ? Very pretentious...
LOL
So, you think that humans are not able do understand what animals want? We are not able to understand that tiger wants to live without being tortured? I am sorry, but that is just too funny. Now we have moved away even from kindergarten level because even small kids would know what tiger thinks about this. :D
...Thus, why did you use the tiger and Johnny as example ! :-p
Because even a tiger has his natural default rights that other living beings can take away or even improve. Some people are even absurdly extreme about animal rights and they try to expand their natural rights and even equate them with human rights.
Right is not the same as need here. Johnny has the right to kill the tiger because humans are masters of animals on Earth. Still, he doesn't need to kill the tiger to survive. He can also accept that he simply has less rights (freedom of moving around the island) and be more careful about avoiding the tiger's territory. Killing the tiger is his right but not his need.
Here, i can feel a problem into your argumentation... You talked about default natural rights for animals and plants... Ok, so as far as i know no one could ever have any communication with animals and plants to konw what they think, if they think, what they want and so on, you, human impose your thought upon those lives ? Very pretentious...
LOL
So, you think that humans are not able do understand what animals want? We are not able to understand that tiger wants to live without being tortured? I am sorry, but that is just too funny. Now we have moved away even from kindergarten level because even small kids would know what tiger thinks about this. :D
...Thus, why did you use the tiger and Johnny as example ! :-p
Because even a tiger has his natural default rights that other living beings can take away or even improve. Some people are even absurdly extreme about animal rights and they try to expand their natural rights and even equate them with human rights.
Right is not the same as need here. Johnny has the right to kill the tiger because humans are masters of animals on Earth
It is just enough for me...
I don't need (but still have right to exchange with you...
It is just enough for me...
I don't need (but still have right to exchange with you...
So enormous answers here
Why do we try to find out some extraterrial lives whereas there 2 humans species that can't even live the same conscious life
Why do we try to find out some extraterrial lives whereas there 2 humans species that can't even live the same conscious life
I'd still like to thank you Sasha, i at least improved my english thanks to you :-)
I think : 1+1=2 and you think 1+1=1... I forgot our books are so differents that it is always impossible to find a common solution...
You really killed me with your last comments Sasha...
I think : 1+1=2 and you think 1+1=1... I forgot our books are so differents that it is always impossible to find a common solution...
You really killed me with your last comments Sasha...
there's nothing in reality called "natural rights" (*)
DEMONSTRATION:
there's no rule that is present in any society.
You do realize you're mixing moral and legal rights here?
DEMONSTRATION:
there's no rule that is present in any society.
You do realize you're mixing moral and legal rights here?
mas·ter
[mas-ter, mah-ster]
noun
1.
a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something: a master of six languages; to be master of one's fate.
2.
an owner of a slave, animal, etc.
3.
an employer of workers or servants.
4.
the male head of a household.
5.
a person eminently skilled in something, as an occupation, art, or science: the great masters of the Impressionist period.
And yes, I am quite sure that intelligent life exists in outer space. The obvious proof is that they have not contacted people on Earth yet.
(edited)
[mas-ter, mah-ster]
noun
1.
a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something: a master of six languages; to be master of one's fate.
2.
an owner of a slave, animal, etc.
3.
an employer of workers or servants.
4.
the male head of a household.
5.
a person eminently skilled in something, as an occupation, art, or science: the great masters of the Impressionist period.
And yes, I am quite sure that intelligent life exists in outer space. The obvious proof is that they have not contacted people on Earth yet.
(edited)
You do realize you're mixing moral and legal rights here?
maybe I'm wrong, but we started from the unborn "right" to live.
Is it a "legal" right? NO, it doesn't exist.
Is it a personal and moral right that someone see and someother doesn't? Ok, I agree..
but
so WHAT???
It show I was right from the beginning there's nothing you or sasha can claim as "right to live" on the unborn, that anyone can recognize and respect. nothing that is useful to talk about in this discussion.
CONCLUSION:
this is NOT a valid argument to sustain anti-abortion campaign.
In fact there are no good arguments for "anti-abortion" people,
if you except the will to decide other people life decisions and the believing they have some supernatural "right" to do so.
NB: the debate on natural rights is a little bit more complicated than this, obvoiusly, but believe me that there are persons that really believe those are real rights.. so it's always useful to remember that those are nothing more than wishes.
(edited)
maybe I'm wrong, but we started from the unborn "right" to live.
Is it a "legal" right? NO, it doesn't exist.
Is it a personal and moral right that someone see and someother doesn't? Ok, I agree..
but
so WHAT???
It show I was right from the beginning there's nothing you or sasha can claim as "right to live" on the unborn, that anyone can recognize and respect. nothing that is useful to talk about in this discussion.
CONCLUSION:
this is NOT a valid argument to sustain anti-abortion campaign.
In fact there are no good arguments for "anti-abortion" people,
if you except the will to decide other people life decisions and the believing they have some supernatural "right" to do so.
NB: the debate on natural rights is a little bit more complicated than this, obvoiusly, but believe me that there are persons that really believe those are real rights.. so it's always useful to remember that those are nothing more than wishes.
(edited)
maybe I'm wrong, but we started from the unborn "right" to live.
Is it a "legal" right? NO, it doesn't exist.
Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life.
South America:
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,
Sub-Saharan Africa:
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, C�te d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.
Middle East and North Africa:
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
Asia and Pacific:
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.
Europe:
Ireland, Malta, Vatican City
And even if it was true that it doesn't exist, your argumentation is again so stupid that it hurts. You're basically saying that abortion should be legal because it is legal.
Is it a "legal" right? NO, it doesn't exist.
Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life.
South America:
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,
Sub-Saharan Africa:
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, C�te d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.
Middle East and North Africa:
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
Asia and Pacific:
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.
Europe:
Ireland, Malta, Vatican City
And even if it was true that it doesn't exist, your argumentation is again so stupid that it hurts. You're basically saying that abortion should be legal because it is legal.
Dafuq? You said you agreed with my explanation of legal right, moral right and moral duty. However, I fear you don't given what you say now.
this is NOT a valid argument to sustain anti-abortion campaign.
So you're saying that because the right to live is a moral right, we shouldn't campaign to make it a legal right, the reason for that being that the right to live (in this case) is not a legal right. So because it isn't a legal right, we shouldn't campaign for it to become a legal right. That would mean that one cannot change the law. Ever.
this is NOT a valid argument to sustain anti-abortion campaign.
So you're saying that because the right to live is a moral right, we shouldn't campaign to make it a legal right, the reason for that being that the right to live (in this case) is not a legal right. So because it isn't a legal right, we shouldn't campaign for it to become a legal right. That would mean that one cannot change the law. Ever.
I haven't followed the whole discussion here, but your argumentation a few days ago was something like:
'abortion should be illegal because I know it is wrong'
Anyway, there has been a whole discussion about rights. I think the whole discussion boils down to: from which moment on is the 'baby' a person and therefore has rights? In the beginning of the pregnancy, this is not the case for me, as the embryo is only a lump of cells. So, at that moment, abortion should, imo, be possible.
Don't get me wrong, however. I don't think abortion should be some kind of ultimate anticonception. But there are a lot of cases in which I think abortion should be possible.
'abortion should be illegal because I know it is wrong'
Anyway, there has been a whole discussion about rights. I think the whole discussion boils down to: from which moment on is the 'baby' a person and therefore has rights? In the beginning of the pregnancy, this is not the case for me, as the embryo is only a lump of cells. So, at that moment, abortion should, imo, be possible.
Don't get me wrong, however. I don't think abortion should be some kind of ultimate anticonception. But there are a lot of cases in which I think abortion should be possible.
And tell me el pupe, why is everyone presumed innocent and not guilty until proven otherwise?
It's the same with abortion. Everyone should also be presumed that he wants to live until proven otherwise.
It's the same with abortion. Everyone should also be presumed that he wants to live until proven otherwise.
NB: the debate on natural rights is a little bit more complicated than this, obvoiusly, but believe me that there are persons that really believe those are real rights.. so it's always useful to remember that those are nothing more than wishes.
Do you mean legal rights by this? Because natural rights are as real as legal rights.
Do you mean legal rights by this? Because natural rights are as real as legal rights.
That it is from Locke doesn't mean there is sense to it.
He has some basically good ideas, but a lot is outdated, due to 300 years evolvement (some more, some less, some degraded) but nevertheless basic line is outdated.
Just an example: he still accepted slavery, there are several others.
Of course it is important to know about him and understand it to some part.
But the main line is, that it is outdated, and something like abortion does not fit in it anyway, due to Lockes lack of the knowledge about it.
That would be, to be precise, the same utter bs, all those religious fanatics try to find in there silly books to solve problems of today.
It is kinda lame.
This would be the fact if I had said: "Locke said this so this is what should be done". I didn't. I didn't came up with Locke. I just think his general idea is good, but on some points I disagree with him (like you mention yourself, slavery). In contradiction to religious fanatics, I'm not defending some book or some person who lived ages ago just for the sake of it. I'm defending my principles, on which Locke most certainly had an influence, just like many other philosophers.
He has some basically good ideas, but a lot is outdated, due to 300 years evolvement (some more, some less, some degraded) but nevertheless basic line is outdated.
Just an example: he still accepted slavery, there are several others.
Of course it is important to know about him and understand it to some part.
But the main line is, that it is outdated, and something like abortion does not fit in it anyway, due to Lockes lack of the knowledge about it.
That would be, to be precise, the same utter bs, all those religious fanatics try to find in there silly books to solve problems of today.
It is kinda lame.
This would be the fact if I had said: "Locke said this so this is what should be done". I didn't. I didn't came up with Locke. I just think his general idea is good, but on some points I disagree with him (like you mention yourself, slavery). In contradiction to religious fanatics, I'm not defending some book or some person who lived ages ago just for the sake of it. I'm defending my principles, on which Locke most certainly had an influence, just like many other philosophers.
And even if it was true that it doesn't exist, your argumentation is again so stupid that it hurts. You're basically saying that abortion should be legal because it is legal.
no I'm saying there's no that "life right" you invented few days ago.
It exist your wish. your preference, your vote,
and in some country there's even a rule that respect your ideas..
but a right no.
this is helpful to conclude that there are no convincing motivation to substain your ideas, you can continue, but it's like hearing people talking about plain earth, or unicorns..
no I'm saying there's no that "life right" you invented few days ago.
It exist your wish. your preference, your vote,
and in some country there's even a rule that respect your ideas..
but a right no.
this is helpful to conclude that there are no convincing motivation to substain your ideas, you can continue, but it's like hearing people talking about plain earth, or unicorns..
So you're saying that because the right to live is a moral right, we shouldn't campaign to make it a legal right, the reason for that being that the right to live (in this case) is not a legal right. So because it isn't a legal right, we shouldn't campaign for it to become a legal right. That would mean that one cannot change the law. Ever.
moral right?
I wonder if you realize that who produce ANTI-MAN MINES would say exactly the same for his "moral right" to kill people
you can do anyhing you want to make rules anykind you like, just remember none of them has nothing more than your personal ideas and preferences (that you call morla rights) to substain them.
moral right?
I wonder if you realize that who produce ANTI-MAN MINES would say exactly the same for his "moral right" to kill people
you can do anyhing you want to make rules anykind you like, just remember none of them has nothing more than your personal ideas and preferences (that you call morla rights) to substain them.
I wonder if you realize that who produce ANTI-MAN MINES would say exactly the same for his "moral right" to kill people
I wish him good luck to make that a legal right.
you can do anyhing you want to make rules anykind you like, just remember none of them has nothing more than your personal ideas and preferences (that you call morla rights) to substain them.
Of course laws are personal ideas and preferences. That is why we only need laws that can become the foundation of our society. The right to live is quite a fundamental law it seems.
I wish him good luck to make that a legal right.
you can do anyhing you want to make rules anykind you like, just remember none of them has nothing more than your personal ideas and preferences (that you call morla rights) to substain them.
Of course laws are personal ideas and preferences. That is why we only need laws that can become the foundation of our society. The right to live is quite a fundamental law it seems.