[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not all humans have that ability.[/quote]
But in reality you can recognize that they might…or even might be convinced if they do not already believe this.
And, if you did not believe in the principle of nonaggression, for example, you would behave a lot less civilly than you otherwise do. I am going to go out on a limb, based on the tone of your posts that most of the time you are a well behaved gentleman. Sorry if that comes across with teh ghey (more fodder for Cryingirish).[/quote]
So it is possible mental ability of the attacker than makes it different? What if it’s a really smart bear?
I’m just not getting what you think the difference is. Us humans with all our mental abilities are still nothing more than attoms in molecules in a chemical reaction resulting in the physical part of what we do.
How is the chemical reaction in a human brain resulting in a physical movement different than that of an animal or even the chemical reaction of iron rusting? Why do you not accept human action as a naturally occurring physical component of the universe? Are you saying that it somehow isn’t?
I don’t know but I don’t remember the last time I was fascinated by a bear for other than just being a bear – even if he was smarter than the average bear.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not all humans have that ability.[/quote]
But in reality you can recognize that they might…or even might be convinced if they do not already believe this.
And, if you did not believe in the principle of nonaggression, for example, you would behave a lot less civilly than you otherwise do. I am going to go out on a limb, based on the tone of your posts that most of the time you are a well behaved gentleman. Sorry if that comes across with teh ghey (more fodder for Cryingirish).[/quote]
So it is possible mental ability of the attacker than makes it different? What if it’s a really smart bear?
I’m just not getting what you think the difference is. Us humans with all our mental abilities are still nothing more than attoms in molecules in a chemical reaction resulting in the physical part of what we do.
How is the chemical reaction in a human brain resulting in a physical movement different than that of an animal or even the chemical reaction of iron rusting? Why do you not accept human action as a naturally occurring physical component of the universe? Are you saying that it somehow isn’t?[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know but I don’t remember the last time I was fascinated by a bear for other than just being a bear – even if he was smarter than the average bear.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not all humans have that ability.[/quote]
But in reality you can recognize that they might…or even might be convinced if they do not already believe this.
And, if you did not believe in the principle of nonaggression, for example, you would behave a lot less civilly than you otherwise do. I am going to go out on a limb, based on the tone of your posts that most of the time you are a well behaved gentleman. Sorry if that comes across with teh ghey (more fodder for Cryingirish).[/quote]
So it is possible mental ability of the attacker than makes it different? What if it’s a really smart bear?
I’m just not getting what you think the difference is. Us humans with all our mental abilities are still nothing more than attoms in molecules in a chemical reaction resulting in the physical part of what we do.
How is the chemical reaction in a human brain resulting in a physical movement different than that of an animal or even the chemical reaction of iron rusting? Why do you not accept human action as a naturally occurring physical component of the universe? Are you saying that it somehow isn’t?[/quote][/quote]
Do you think a higher power established those rights for man, since I see no logical explanation?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Do you think a higher power established those rights for man, since I see no logical explanation?[/quote]
No, I think they have to be reasoned.
If I have a natural right to exist then on what grounds can I say that someone else does not have that same right?
It is a logical progression from that question that we can deduce the existence of the natural rights.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Do you think a higher power established those rights for man, since I see no logical explanation?[/quote]
No, I think they have to be reasoned.
If I have a natural right to exist then on what grounds can I say that someone else does not have that same right?
It is a logical progression from that question that we can deduce the existence of the natural rights.[/quote]
natural right to exist? How do you get there?
You do naturally have the right to exist in so far as you can outfox nature, but as I’ve said, humans are as much a part of nature as a virus that might kill you.
I guess my bigger point is that if you can leap to the conclusion that individuals have a right to exist, why can’t someone else leap the the conclusion that society does? Or as I sarcastically pointed out before, why do you leap past the notion that your hand could have rights? why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?[/quote]
My experience is that if I want the exercise of my free will to be respected I should also respect others to do so.
If I as an individual have the right to secede so does the collective.
I see courage in the individual that chooses not to join either country or state; by choosing to stand alone in life I risk losing the support of my group and have to accept responsibility for my choice in the knowledge that my survival now depends entirely on me, and the extreme consequence of that choice can include that I may die and I will not blame my state or country for not supporting me or taking me back into their tribe and so be it.
I see courage in the individual that chooses to join either country or state; by choosing to fight for the tribe he/she may lose his life but he will ( hopefully.) not lose the support of the tribe he chooses to fight for and will not blame the individual who chose to fight alone for abandoning my tribe because I chose to believe there is strength in numbers.
Wouldn’t it being otherwise constitute a double standard?
I see neither being right or wrong. I see neither being better than the other.
Both are exercising their free will that they saw as the best for themselves and their families to live their lives.
Freedom of a choice that may or may not ensure their survival and that of their families but respected their values.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?[/quote]
My experience is that if I want the exercise of my free will to be respected I should also respect others to do so.
If I as an individual have the right to secede so does the collective.
I see courage in the individual that chooses not to join either country or state; by choosing to stand alone in life I risk losing the support of my group and have to accept responsibility for my choice in the knowledge that my survival now depends entirely on me, and the extreme consequence of that choice can include that I may die and I will not blame my state or country for not supporting me or taking me back into their tribe and so be it.
I see courage in the individual that chooses to join either country or state; by choosing to fight for the tribe he/she may lose his life but he will ( hopefully.) not lose the support of the tribe he chooses to fight for and will not blame the individual who chose to fight alone for abandoning my tribe because I chose to believe there is strength in numbers.
Wouldn’t it being otherwise constitute a double standard?
I see neither being right or wrong. I see neither being better than the other.
Both are exercising their free will that they saw as the best for themselves and their families to live their lives.
Freedom of a choice that may or may not ensure their survival and that of their families but respected their values.
[/quote]
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
The funny part is that, in LIFTY’s version, humans actually have less a right to self determination than animals do. An animal can take and steal and kill with impunity. But he wishes to limit the free will of other humans to not allow those things.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?[/quote]
My experience is that if I want the exercise of my free will to be respected I should also respect others to do so.
If I as an individual have the right to secede so does the collective.
I see courage in the individual that chooses not to join either country or state; by choosing to stand alone in life I risk losing the support of my group and have to accept responsibility for my choice in the knowledge that my survival now depends entirely on me, and the extreme consequence of that choice can include that I may die and I will not blame my state or country for not supporting me or taking me back into their tribe and so be it.
I see courage in the individual that chooses to join either country or state; by choosing to fight for the tribe he/she may lose his life but he will ( hopefully.) not lose the support of the tribe he chooses to fight for and will not blame the individual who chose to fight alone for abandoning my tribe because I chose to believe there is strength in numbers.
Wouldn’t it being otherwise constitute a double standard?
I see neither being right or wrong. I see neither being better than the other.
Both are exercising their free will that they saw as the best for themselves and their families to live their lives.
Freedom of a choice that may or may not ensure their survival and that of their families but respected their values.
[/quote]
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
The funny part is that, in LIFTY’s version, humans actually have less a right to self determination than animals do. An animal can take and steal and kill with impunity. But he wishes to limit the free will of other humans to not allow those things.[/quote]
True free will means you can do what you want. Including injuring your fellow man or joining a society.
It is actually more of an artificial interference and more of a restriction of free will to try to prevent society in a very social animal.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
True free will means you can do what you want. Including injuring your fellow many or joining a society.
It is actually more of an artificial interference and more of a restriction of free will to try to prevent society in a very social animal.[/quote]
Very good point on trying to prevent the free will of a society in a very social animal.
I agree with what all you said above with one addendum;
You can do what you want knowing that what goes around comes around.
True free will means doing as you will and not blaming others for what you willed.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?[/quote]
My experience is that if I want the exercise of my free will to be respected I should also respect others to do so.
If I as an individual have the right to secede so does the collective.
I see courage in the individual that chooses not to join either country or state; by choosing to stand alone in life I risk losing the support of my group and have to accept responsibility for my choice in the knowledge that my survival now depends entirely on me, and the extreme consequence of that choice can include that I may die and I will not blame my state or country for not supporting me or taking me back into their tribe and so be it.
I see courage in the individual that chooses to join either country or state; by choosing to fight for the tribe he/she may lose his life but he will ( hopefully.) not lose the support of the tribe he chooses to fight for and will not blame the individual who chose to fight alone for abandoning my tribe because I chose to believe there is strength in numbers.
Wouldn’t it being otherwise constitute a double standard?
I see neither being right or wrong. I see neither being better than the other.
Both are exercising their free will that they saw as the best for themselves and their families to live their lives.
Freedom of a choice that may or may not ensure their survival and that of their families but respected their values.
[/quote]
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
The funny part is that, in LIFTY’s version, humans actually have less a right to self determination than animals do. An animal can take and steal and kill with impunity. But he wishes to limit the free will of other humans to not allow those things.[/quote]
That’s not true.
Only humans have a free will and can exercise liberty – your argument about animals is nonsensical. We kill and eat them and that is all there is to it.
I don’t get where you are making that incorrect inference from.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
True free will means doing as you will and not blaming others for what you willed.
[/quote]
This.
I have stated before that true freedom requires people to take responsibility for their actions.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I guess my bigger point is that if you can leap to the conclusion that individuals have a right to exist, why can’t someone else leap the the conclusion that society does? Or as I sarcastically pointed out before, why do you leap past the notion that your hand could have rights? why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?[/quote]
Society is just an abstraction. Only individuals exist. Society is a process…the individuals that make up that process have rights.
We have rights because without them we cannot exist among other people that we do not get along with. Only an single acting individual can have right otherwise it doesn’t make sense to even discuss them. My hand, for example is not an entity unto itself – it requires my free will to give it direction.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I guess my bigger point is that if you can leap to the conclusion that individuals have a right to exist, why can’t someone else leap the the conclusion that society does? Or as I sarcastically pointed out before, why do you leap past the notion that your hand could have rights? why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?[/quote]
Society is just an abstraction. Only individuals exist. Society is a process…the individuals that make up that process have rights.
[/quote]
Individuals are just a process. That’s what life is, a process. The individual is just an abstraction too.
[quote]
We have rights because without them we cannot exist among other people that we do not get along with. Only an single acting individual can have right otherwise it doesn’t make sense to even discuss them. My hand, for example is not an entity unto itself – it requires my free will to give it direction.[/quote]
The same argument can be made for society, or a bear.
Are your fingernails protected by your “individual” rights but as soon as you cut them off, they have no rights? Iâ??m just looking for a logical reason you are choosing to assign rights to the individual human and nothing else.
And it doesn’t require your will, just a chemical reaction causing muscle contractions. It can happen in a dead person too.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I guess my bigger point is that if you can leap to the conclusion that individuals have a right to exist, why can’t someone else leap the the conclusion that society does? Or as I sarcastically pointed out before, why do you leap past the notion that your hand could have rights? why is it only the collective that is a person that guarantees those rights?[/quote]
Society is just an abstraction. Only individuals exist. Society is a process…the individuals that make up that process have rights.
[/quote]
Individuals are just a process. That’s what life is, a process. The individual is just an abstraction too.
[quote]
We have rights because without them we cannot exist among other people that we do not get along with. Only an single acting individual can have right otherwise it doesn’t make sense to even discuss them. My hand, for example is not an entity unto itself – it requires my free will to give it direction.[/quote]
The same argument can be made for society, or a bear.
Are your fingernails protected by your “individual” rights but as soon as you cut them off, they have no rights? Iâ??m just looking for a logical reason you are choosing to assign rights to the individual human and nothing else.
And it doesn’t require your will, just a chemical reaction causing muscle contractions. It can happen in a dead person too.[/quote]
Then you don’t really exist and you cannot argue anything.
This is just getting silly.
And what you meant to say is:
Life is a process.
An individual is a living expression of that process.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Only humans have a free will and can exercise liberty – your argument about animals is nonsensical. We kill and eat them and that is all there is to it.
[/quote]
I don’t want to derail the thread so no need to reply to this but you are the first American that speaks of animals for what they are.
I moved to America 8 months ago and this is the third culture I come to be a guest in.
I find it disturbing the indoctrination that the pet industry has done, survived and thrived on
( by capitalizing on peoples emotions.), namely, that pets are like a member of the human family and have equal importance to being “like a child.”
It is almost unbelievable that a country which can be a killing machine, has no problem going abroad or fighting within and ending human life, has domesticated animals to the point of being domesticated in return.
The principle remains; what goes around comes around.
/hijack.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Then you don’t really exist and you cannot argue anything.
This is just getting silly.[/quote]
But you canâ??t give me any logical reason otherwise, that makes your notion of the individual silly.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And what you meant to say is:
Life is a process.
An individual is a living expression of that process.[/quote]
No, I meant what I said.
The individual is a collective of quarks arranged in a way we label them human and in a chemical reaction we call life all in the general process of the physical universe. The individual is a process.
How are “your” quarks different that a “bear’s” quarks?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Then you don’t really exist and you cannot argue anything.
This is just getting silly.[/quote]
But you canâ??t give me any logical reason otherwise, that makes your notion of the individual silly.[/quote]
Either you exist or you do not.
Either you own your own life or you do not.
Do you understand the implications of denying these propositions?
No further discussion need take place.