[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
I do believe Zap is using sarcasm to prove a point.
Sarcasm aside, he hasn’t proven anything other than his ignorance of a word. Free does not mean free of consequence. There will always be consequence.[/quote]
And if one is prepared to take the consequences,one is free to do whatever one wants.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
In a free society free men must be allowed to kill others over disputes.
Under what precept?
Freedom.
So your notion of freedom is its justification for taking someone else’s freedom by killing them? I am afraid your notion is completely backward.
I find your concept of freedom very limiting. If I cannot do what I want I am not free. [/quote]
You are free to be a rational animal. Freedom is not the ability to do ANY action but only those that a RATIONAL animal would do. To engage in trade with equals is rational, for ex, but initiating violence is not.
Good trolling, btw. Not subtle, but good.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
I do believe Zap is using sarcasm to prove a point.
Sarcasm aside, he hasn’t proven anything other than his ignorance of a word. Free does not mean free of consequence. There will always be consequence.[/quote]
In fact there is no freedom without consequence. If it matters not what you chose, why chose?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
In a free society free men must be allowed to kill others over disputes.
Under what precept?
Freedom.
So your notion of freedom is its justification for taking someone else’s freedom by killing them? I am afraid your notion is completely backward.
I find your concept of freedom very limiting. If I cannot do what I want I am not free.
You are free to be a rational animal. Freedom is not the ability to do ANY action but only those that a RATIONAL animal would do. To engage in trade with equals is rational, for ex, but initiating violence is not.
Good trolling, btw. Not subtle, but good.
[/quote]
Who says violence is not rational? Getting rid of a rival might benefit me enormously and is quite a rational way of achieving my goals.
[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
In a free society free men must be allowed to kill others over disputes.
Under what precept?
Freedom.
So your notion of freedom is its justification for taking someone else’s freedom by killing them? I am afraid your notion is completely backward.
I find your concept of freedom very limiting. If I cannot do what I want I am not free.
You are free to be a rational animal. Freedom is not the ability to do ANY action but only those that a RATIONAL animal would do. To engage in trade with equals is rational, for ex, but initiating violence is not.
Good trolling, btw. Not subtle, but good.
Who says violence is not rational? Getting rid of a rival might benefit me enormously and is quite a rational way of achieving my goals.
[/quote]
If it is morally right to kill a rational animal, then you yourself can be killed, and it would be perfectly moral to do so. Only someone who initiates violence (and is hence irrational) can be stopped, reluctantly by killing them.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If it is morally right to kill a rational animal, then you yourself can be killed, and it would be perfectly moral to do so. Only someone who initiates violence (and is hence irrational) can be stopped, reluctantly by killing them.
[/quote]
I think we have been through this before but rationality has nothing to do with choosing “correct” action. Rationality is the ability to reason. Since all action requires the use of reason we cannot logically call any action irrational.
Violence is rational action, as any category of action must be considered, but whether it is wrong or not is left to ethicists to determine and they wouldn’t comment on rationality.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If it is morally right to kill a rational animal, then you yourself can be killed, and it would be perfectly moral to do so. Only someone who initiates violence (and is hence irrational) can be stopped, reluctantly by killing them.
I think we have been through this before but rationality has nothing to do with choosing “correct” action. Rationality is the ability to reason. Since all action requires the use of reason we cannot logically call any action irrational.
Violence is rational action, as any category of action must be considered, but whether it is wrong or not is left to ethicists to determine and they wouldn’t comment on rationality.[/quote]
No. Rationality is the process whereby the mind forms concepts via abstraction from percepts. If you do this correctly, then you are correctly forming concepts. To reason means to process.
It actually has nothing to do with how you behave or interact with others. However, to kill a creature that has the same characteristics (esp the definig one) is to announce that you too can be killed.
Why is it legal to hunt animals but not people? If you advocate hunting people, then you must grant that YOU can be hunted.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No. Rationality is the process whereby the mind forms concepts via abstraction from percepts. If you do this correctly, then you are correctly forming concepts. To reason means to process.
[/quote]
The ability to conceptualize does not necessarily conclude that one has conceptualized the correct means for bringing about an end. Rationalization is still a requirement for all action because one must conceive of the concepts that must be utilized for action.
My personal opinion is that we cannot logically expect our rights to be respected if we do not give the same respect to others. Like you said, it’s a matter of reciprocity.