Blue. Or, I call “blue” the color that the sky is .[/quote]
So we both agree that the color you see, and have been trained to call “blue” may not be the same color I see and have been trained to call “blue” correct?[/quote]
I haven’t kept up on all the research, but I believe that there is evidence to suggest that this is literally the case.
[/quote]
This is the coolest thing I’ve heard in a long time BTW, and if you run across it and don’t mind linking for my lazy ass that would be great.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I’m a psychopath and I don’t acknowledge that anyone has any rights. Prove to me that these rights exist.
[/quote]
I don’t need to; I would shoot and kill you. If you refuse to acknowledge that rights(or whatever you wish to call them) exist, against all evidence(my very life, the fact that my property was either previously unclaimed or claimed by way of mutual consent, the fact that I can use my body to do things) to the contrary, then killing you obviously presents no issues.
You’re asking me to do the equivalent of teaching a dead man to breathe. If one refuses to acknowledge that rights exist, then killing him is justifiable. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I’m a psychopath and I don’t acknowledge that anyone has any rights. Prove to me that these rights exist.
[/quote]
I don’t need to; I would shoot and kill you. If you refuse to acknowledge that rights(or whatever you wish to call them) exist, against all evidence(my very life, the fact that my property was either previously unclaimed or claimed by way of mutual consent, the fact that I can use my body to do things) to the contrary, then killing you obviously presents no issues.
You’re asking me to do the equivalent of teaching a dead man to breathe. If one refuses to acknowledge that rights exist, then killing him is justifiable. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable.[/quote]
Say for argument’s sake when you pull the gun I grab your hand and place you in nikyo with the barrel pointed at your head and demand that you prove the existence of your rights could you do it?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I’m a psychopath and I don’t acknowledge that anyone has any rights. Prove to me that these rights exist.
[/quote]
I don’t need to; I would shoot and kill you. If you refuse to acknowledge that rights(or whatever you wish to call them) exist, against all evidence(my very life, the fact that my property was either previously unclaimed or claimed by way of mutual consent, the fact that I can use my body to do things) to the contrary, then killing you obviously presents no issues.
You’re asking me to do the equivalent of teaching a dead man to breathe. If one refuses to acknowledge that rights exist, then killing him is justifiable. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable.[/quote]
Say for argument’s sake when you pull the gun I grab your hand and place you in nikyo with the barrel pointed at your head and demand that you prove the existence of your rights could you do it?
[/quote]
If you wouldn’t allow me to shoot you in the head, it would prove that you acknowledge that a right to life exists. There is no way to make you respect those rights, but their EXISTENCE is obvious.
If you wouldn’t allow me to shoot you in the head, it would prove that you acknowledge that a right to life exists. [/quote]
Nonsense.[/quote]
I should have stated that the fact that you realize that I do not have a right to shoot you in the head proves that you do not have a right to shoot me in the head. There would be no way to prevent you from committing such an act, but you would know that you are wrong.
I should have stated that the fact that you realize that I do not have a right to shoot you in the head proves that you do not have a right to shoot me in the head. M
[/quote]
But I haven’t realised you don’t have that right. All I have realised is that I don’t want you to shoot me.
If you wouldn’t allow me to shoot you in the head, it would prove that you acknowledge that a right to life exists. [/quote]
Nonsense.[/quote]
I should have stated that the fact that you realize that I do not have a right to shoot you in the head proves that you do not have a right to shoot me in the head.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Not at all.
But there is an even larger problem here: You are trying to show that natural rights do exist, and you’re talking about rights you and SM don’t have.
But there is an even larger problem here: You are trying to show that natural rights do exist, and you’re talking about rights you and SM don’t have.[/quote]
Yes, it does. By not allowing it to happen to yourself, you acknowledge it is wrong. Nobody truly believes that he can rightfully do to others what others can’t do to him. People certainly DO those things, but everybody knows they are wrong. I don’t care what kind of excuse(that’s what many/most mental illness labels are-excuses for wrongdoings) you offer, the fact that you didn’t allow it to happen to yourself is acknowledgement that it’s wrong.
I’ve already stated that rights are better viewed as negative rights-as in sexmachine and I do NOT have the right to X. A right to life would actually mean that others have an obligation to help you live. A right to liberty would mean that others would have an obligation to let you use their property. A right to property would mean that others have an obligation to provide you property. It’s better stated that nobody has a right to take your life, etc.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The right to life comes from being born.
[/quote]
And in the case of a miscarriage? [/quote]
*born alive…knew I should have specified that.[/quote]
I’m confused, so Vagina grants the right to life?
In other words, nature can take the right to life away (a miscarriage), but if you pass through a vagina (birth) you have the right to life, which is a natural and unalienable right?
This is really not an area I’m that familiar with so I’m truly just confused.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I was really hoping some leftists would join in the discussion so I could pick apart their convoluted batshit arguments. Sandra Fluke has a right to other people’s money and a right to force private religious institutions to provide her with abortifacients so she can commit infanticide because she has a right to commit infanticide.[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In other words, nature can take the right to life away (a miscarriage), but if you pass through a vagina (birth) you have the right to life, which is a natural and unalienable right?
[/quote]
It doesn’t seem that you’re confused. A NATURAL right can be taken by NATURE(however one refers to nature).
As somebody pointed out, unalienable is a terrible description of any right. If life was an unalienable right, suicide would be impossible. If liberty was an unalienable right, nobody could physically be put in jail. If property was unalienable, nobody could give.
But there is an even larger problem here: You are trying to show that natural rights do exist, and you’re talking about rights you and SM don’t have.[/quote]
Yes, it does. By not allowing it to happen to yourself, you acknowledge it is wrong. Nobody truly believes that he can rightfully do to others what others can’t do to him. People certainly DO those things, but everybody knows they are wrong. I don’t care what kind of excuse(that’s what many/most mental illness labels are-excuses for wrongdoings) you offer, the fact that you didn’t allow it to happen to yourself is acknowledgement that it’s wrong.
I’ve already stated that rights are better viewed as negative rights-as in sexmachine and I do NOT have the right to X. A right to life would actually mean that others have an obligation to help you live. A right to liberty would mean that others would have an obligation to let you use their property. A right to property would mean that others have an obligation to provide you property. It’s better stated that nobody has a right to take your life, etc.[/quote]
You are leaping from “I do not want X to happen to me” to “I have a natural right for X not to happen to me.” The latter formulation is not logically entailed by the former, if you mean by “natural right” what philosophers have meant in the past.
Perhaps you don’t mean that. What, exactly, is your definition of a “natural right”? Whence come they?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are leaping from “I do not want X to happen to me” to “I have a natural right for X not to happen to me.” The latter formulation is not logically entailed by the former, if you mean by “natural right” what philosophers have meant in the past.
Perhaps you don’t mean that. What, exactly, is your definition of a “natural right”? Whence come they?
[/quote]
No, I’m saying that if one does not want X to happen TO HIM, he knows that he does NOT have a right to X to ANOTHER. He very well may do it, but he knows it’s wrong. Everyone recognizes the principle.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are leaping from “I do not want X to happen to me” to “I have a natural right for X not to happen to me.” The latter formulation is not logically entailed by the former, if you mean by “natural right” what philosophers have meant in the past.
Perhaps you don’t mean that. What, exactly, is your definition of a “natural right”? Whence come they?
[/quote]
No, I’m saying that if one does not want X to happen TO HIM, he knows that he does NOT have a right to X to ANOTHER.[/quote]
Again, you are trying to use the absence of a right to prove the existence of rights. Your premises do not entail your conclusion.
That smh has no right to do X to Nick is immaterial to the question under our consideration, which is whether or not natural rights exist at all.
That is, if I am correct and natural rights do not exist (or, there is no reason to believe that natural rights exist), then your argument does not address this: smh still does not have a natural right to do X to Nick. Because natural rights do not exist.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Again, you are trying to use the absence of a right to prove the existence of rights. Your premises do not entail your conclusion.
That smh has no right to do X to Nick is immaterial to the question under our consideration, which is whether or not natural rights exist at all.
That is, if I am correct and natural rights do not exist (or, there is no reason to believe that natural rights exist), then your argument does not address this: smh still does not have a natural right to do X to Nick. Because natural rights do not exist.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Google negative vs. positive rights. I may not be explaining it well. I’m not arguing that a right to live exists; I’m arguing that nobody can justly take the life of another, unless that other admits that he no longer wants to live by threatening the life of the somebody.
Like I said, every man admits the existence of the principle, even if he doesn’t honor it. Nobody has a right to do anything to another, except with the consent of another. At that point, it may no longer be considered a right, but a voluntary transaction.
Maybe you’re asking how the principle can be enforced? By individuals, by individuals combining, etc. It is the only rule that can be justly enforced.
Maybe you’re asking how a natural right can be violated? The same way a man-made right is. By other men.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Again, you are trying to use the absence of a right to prove the existence of rights. Your premises do not entail your conclusion.
That smh has no right to do X to Nick is immaterial to the question under our consideration, which is whether or not natural rights exist at all.
That is, if I am correct and natural rights do not exist (or, there is no reason to believe that natural rights exist), then your argument does not address this: smh still does not have a natural right to do X to Nick. Because natural rights do not exist.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Google negative vs. positive rights.[/quote]
I’m well aware of the distinction. Thing is, it doesn’t do much for us here. We are talking about whether rights exist at all, positive or negative.
[quote]
I may not be explaining it well. I’m not arguing that a right to live exists; I’m arguing that nobody can justly take the life of another, unless that other admits that he no longer wants to live by threatening the life of the somebody.[/quote]
It’s important, in debates like these, to keep terms uniform and consistent. Now you’re talking about what can be “justly” done. If we’re talking about rights, we need to keep on rights. Do you mean that nobody has a natural right to take the life of another? I agree, because nobody has any natural right at all.
The actual question which concerns us is this: Does anybody have a natural right not to have their life taken from them?
If yes, on what evidence do we affirm this right, and where does it come from?