|
 phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
I gotta say, looking at the words in the constitution, it looks pretty bad.
But, in Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."
So, the justices are within their assigned powers to interpret the constitution, even if you disagree with their interpretation.
I think that the federal reserve is a good thing to have, and that, in this case, Marshall made a good decision, even if his interpretation of the wording of the constitution seems a bit... awkward.
So, our laws and traditions, while founded on the constitution, extend far beyond the constitution. A minority, yourself included, don't think this should be the case. 
Given today's state of affairs, I'm tempted to agree  . But, not quite.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell
Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
 Re: other boards?  [Re: phi1618]
#2725300 - 05/24/04 10:30 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If you guys are still looking for universal objective right and wrongs... You should change right and wrong to possible and impossible.
Objectivity deals only with physical reality. Not the realities that go on in our heads.
To the best of my knowledge perpetual motion machines are universally wrong. As is traveling faster than the speed of light. Etc.
To say their are objective rights and wrongs is a fallacy in itself as those concepts are intangible; they don't even exist in the physical realm.
Universal rights and wrongs are basically in the same boat. 'Universal' has the tendency to be all-encompassing. Even in our limited knowledge of our corner in time, and our corner of the world we can still find exceptions to popular notions of right and wrong. If anyone can find an example of right and wrong that no one can find an example of exception, I'll be impressed. But then again proving such a thing is impossible as it would require knowledge of everything... Universal knowledge if you will, and if someone has that: Welcome God!
Oh and its right to beat a baby to death because it makes too much noise when you boil it alive.
--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Now, animals also have these options. However, since they lack the ability to reason or communicate with us, it is hard for them to accept such an agreement, though they could be trained to not initiate force, as seen in the case of pets.
So the reason they are not extended rights is because they can't reason or communicate with us?
That means if I come across a mentally retarded beggar kid in Calcutta who possesses neither reason nor language, I can make shish kabobs out of him? Obviously that criterion doesn't work.
Maybe you're trying to say that rights only extend to homo sapiens. The problem there is that, for example, chimpanzees share 99.4% of the same genetic code with human beings. Why does that 0.6% difference give them 0% percent of our rights as opposed to say, 99.4% of our rights? At the very least, why do we not extend them the right simply to be left alone?
Most animals stay away from human civilization.
Wisely so, since they are well aware that the human animal is the most dangerous predator on the planet.
Occasionally, a bear or mountain lion will wander into a city and kill domesticated animals, in which case, they can either be killed or captured and returned to the wild.
Do cows, pigs, and chickens initiate force on human beings, or just mind their own business? They just mind their own business. Does that stop us from killing them? No.
Human rights are only relevant within human society, yes. Wolf societies could very well have rights too, but they would only apply to wolves and the interaction between them. Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
Which just demonstrates that what we define as human rights has nothing to do with nature or natural law. You, a human being, claim that animals have no rights. Somebody else, another human being, may come along and claim they do. In any case, the ensuing discussion will have nothing to do with "nature" or "natural law" and everything to do with the subjective values and belief systems of different human beings. The refusal to extend the right to be left alone, as a minimum, to animals who leave us alone is patently an example of human self-interest leading to a double standard, not of any universal, objective morality.
Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
So if a human being decides to quit human society and lives wild in the forest, leaving others alone, a member of human society can come along and shoot him dead with impunity?
The very fact that we can decide when and to whom or what to "extend" rights demonstrates, once again, that rights are the product of social negotiation, not of natural law--which is precisely what people like phi have been arguing against your protestations.
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
EchoVortex said:
Now, animals also have these options. However, since they lack the ability to reason or communicate with us, it is hard for them to accept such an agreement, though they could be trained to not initiate force, as seen in the case of pets.
So the reason they are not extended rights is because they can't reason or communicate with us?
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Quote:
That means if I come across a mentally retarded beggar kid in Calcutta who possesses neither reason nor language, I can make shish kabobs out of him? Obviously that criterion doesn't work.
Cute, but no. He's still part of human society.
Quote:
Maybe you're trying to say that rights only extend to homo sapiens.
No, they only extend to those within society. Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
Quote:
The problem there is that, for example, chimpanzees share 99.4% of the same genetic code with human beings. Why does that 0.6% difference give them 0% percent of our rights as opposed to say, 99.4% of our rights? At the very least, why do we not extend them the right simply to be left alone?
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society. I do, however, consider it at least unnerving that we go into their society and kidnap them for scientific testing.
Quote:
Occasionally, a bear or mountain lion will wander into a city and kill domesticated animals, in which case, they can either be killed or captured and returned to the wild.
Do cows, pigs, and chickens initiate force on human beings, or just mind their own business? They just mind their own business. Does that stop us from killing them? No.
Quite correct. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, as I myself have personally struggled with the ethics of eating meat. If anyone else has a response to this, I'd love to hear it.
Quote:
Human rights are only relevant within human society, yes. Wolf societies could very well have rights too, but they would only apply to wolves and the interaction between them. Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
Which just demonstrates that what we define as human rights has nothing to do with nature or natural law. You, a human being, claim that animals have no rights.
I have said no such thing.
Quote:
In any case, the ensuing discussion will have nothing to do with "nature" or "natural law" and everything to do with the subjective values and belief systems of different human beings.
No, it has to do with the nature of society and our existence.
Quote:
The refusal to extend the right to be left alone, as a minimum, to animals who leave us alone is patently an example of human self-interest leading to a double standard, not of any universal, objective morality.
It is not a double-standard because as I have said repeatedly said, rights are only relevant within society. For those that are not a part of society, human or animal, rights have no meaning.
Quote:
Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
So if a human being decides to quit human society and lives wild in the forest, leaving others alone, a member of human society can come along and shoot him dead with impunity?
Sure, just as he might do to that person. In the absence of society, nothing is forbidden. However, you could simply agree not to initiate force against one another, and then form your own miniature "society."
Quote:
The very fact that we can decide when and to whom or what to "extend" rights demonstrates, once again, that rights are the product of social negotiation, not of natural law--which is precisely what people like phi have been arguing against your protestations.
Ah, but natural law deals with the nature of these social negotiations and follows them to their logical conclusion. If people must agree to not initiate force against one another in order to survive, then it follows that this should be upheld consistently.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2726404 - 05/25/04 03:34 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I gotta say, looking at the words in the constitution, it looks pretty bad.
Pretty bad? Pretty bad shit. The words are clear. Those programs are not for the feds no matter what the courts said. You like them because you agree with them. The words are not ambiguous at all.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
What makes something objective? How can we tell?
When I say "there can be no perpetual motion machine", I am making a statement obout objective, material reality - something which is fundamentally beyond our perception and out of our grasp, but which we all agree exists.
I say that there are no perpetual motion machines because 1) I'd know one if I saw it, and 2) to the best of my knowlege, no one has ever seen one, despite occasional claims to the contrary.
If we say "natural rights exist", talking again about objective reality, how could we tell? How could we disprove or prove the statement, based on observation? What things should I look for, now, today, in the world, to find a natural right?
Quote:
To say there are objective rights and wrongs is a fallacy in itself as those concepts are intangible; they don't even exist in the physical realm.
Sounds right to me...
Quote:
Universal rights and wrongs are basically in the same boat. 'Universal' has the tendency to be all-encompassing. Even in our limited knowledge of our corner in time, and our corner of the world we can still find exceptions to popular notions of right and wrong. If anyone can find an example of right and wrong that no one can find an example of exception, I'll be impressed. But then again proving such a thing is impossible as it would require knowledge of everything... Universal knowledge if you will, and if someone has that: Welcome God!
I agree that it is impossible to prove that a particular notion of right and wrong is universal; however, it doesn't matter. It's also imposible to prove that there are no perpetual motions machines; we only believe it because it hasn't yet been disproven, and not for lack of trying.
However, I think that the statement "the notion that initiation of force by a human against another human is wrong is universal" is both 1)disproven and 2) intrinsically problematic.
The first has been covered earlier in this thread and elsewhere extensively; if anyone believes that everyone agrees that initiation of force is wrong, just let me know...
For the second - what constitutes initiation of force against another human? Does catching a fish - thus preventing another from catching that fish - constitute an initiation of force? If too many people catch too many fish, it gets harder and harder to catch fish - a situation that we're in today. How about air or water pollution? How about selling enough of a particular currency to cause its exchange rate to tumble? Printing counterfeit currency? Selling super-hot coffee without a warning label? Writing a piece of software that is very similar to a comercial application and giving it away for donations? Downloading copyrighted music? Patenting genes? Breaking a patent? Cutting across a neighbors lawn (in foot) to save 5 minutes without asking? Begging at the gas station? Misrepresenting the facts to get a job, or get a handout?
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."
This is not a case of violating the intentions of the founding fathers, or anything like it: Some agreed with your interpretion of the constitution (ie. Thomas Jefferson), some figured otherwise.
Notice that the federal reserve was established in 1791, and the offending decision was made in 1819. "Activist judges" are a tradition nearly as old as the constitution itself.
The constitution is not the holy and inviolate foundation of our law. Our legal system is based on the precident of legal cases going back before the constitution, as well as the constitution itself. Even the first judicial decisions under the Constitution rested on the precidents set by earlier cases, and earlier legal documents.
This is the way it's done - you have a strong belief about what should be, but this is what is. Most of the legal profession disagrees with your interpretation, not based on the words of the constitution, but based on the precident of case law.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2726838 - 05/25/04 08:22 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
To expand on a point I just made, what of equality of birth? If one person is born into poverty, has poor nutrition and little education in his young life, why shouldn't the state act to remedy the situation?
Why should the government act to 'remedy' the situation? Why should the circumstances of one man's birth be used as the claim upon the life of another?
Quote:
Our government gives representation to those who vote - 1 man, 1 vote - not 1 dollar, 1 vote.
Actually you are mistaken, one man, one vote does not equate to representation for everyone who votes. Those who vote for the winning candidate are more likely to be represented in the legislature or executive, but even that is not assured. We still have a winner takes all system, I can assure you that I am not represented in the Congress. I have even sent letters to my so-called 'representatives' only to have responses telling me why they would not champion my opinion.
Quote:
You are an optimist, and that is comendable.
I am a realist, there ARE renewable resources economic activity is not a zero sum game.
Quote:
Is the initation of force acceptable if it is percieved to be imperitive for survival?
If a man points a gun at me and I perceive that he intends to kill me I have no reservations about taking action before I am unable to. Likewise if an innocent thrid party is in danger.
Quote:
For example, I met an Israeli man... the Israeli people absolutely need their own nation to survive...
He is mistaken.
Quote:
And, certainly, there have been countless other examples of this in history and literature, of violence done for survival.
So? If your neighbor is a thief and a rapist, does that justify you becoming a thief and a rapist?
Quote:
There can be no initiation of force; Every force is part of an unbroken chain or web of forces; no force has a origen or a terminus.
You are conflating all actions in the universe with a discussion of politics. Keep in mind that in the context of politics, the initiation of force others refer to is that of person against person in order to acheive political or social goals, not force exerted by a person against inanimate objects or non-human animals, not force required to defend oneself from an attacker. Try not to cloud up the waters too much, straw men don't belong in the pool... they bring in debris and they can't swim.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2726862 - 05/25/04 08:35 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
Notice that the federal reserve was established in 1791,
No it wasn't, "The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. Congress created the Federal Reserve through a law passed in 1913..." from The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis web site.
Quote:
... and the offending decision was made in 1819. "Activist judges" are a tradition nearly as old as the constitution itself.
So? Does that make it right?
Quote:
The constitution is not the holy and inviolate foundation of our law.
The Constitution is the charter of the federal government, setting it up as an agent of the states with certain delimited powers and responsibilities. That this charter has been ignored, broken and blatantly misinterpreted to foist political agendas and accumulate power is not an argument for the constitutionality of the actions of those in power.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2726918 - 05/25/04 08:57 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
No it wasn't, "The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. Congress created the Federal Reserve through a law passed in 1913..."
You're right. I didn't understand the distinction of the federal reserve system from simply gov't run banking.
The first national (run by the federal gov't) bank was established in 1791, over the protestations of the Sec. of State Thomas Jefferson, who claimed it was outside the powers allowed the federal gov't in the constitution.
Quote:
The Constitution is the charter of the federal government, setting it up as an agent of the states with certain delimited powers and responsibilities. That this charter has been ignored, broken and blatantly misinterpreted to foist political agendas and accumulate power is not an argument for the constitutionality of the actions of those in power.
My point is that 1) the government is more than just the constitution; lawyers use case law and president in addition to legislative and constitutional law, and 2) the courts decide what the role of the constitution is.
I agree w/ alot of your points, ie. economic activity is not a zero-sum game, and some resources are renewable if used properly. However, proper use of resources can require collective controll, such as w/ fish and pollution.
As far as what constitutes an initiation of force; I don't think the concept can accurately guide us to any conclusion in the majority of real cases.
So, you have an idea of how things should be. How should we reach that state of affairs?
For example, what should be done w/ the social security system? I think the benefits payed out need to be scaled back significantly; perhaps the program could even be phased out. But, I don't think we can simply eliminate it - plenty of people depend on social security for their retirement, and won't be able to support themselves on their savings alone.
Really, I guess this belongs in a seperate thread - but my basic quesiton here is, how should we achieve the minimal, Jeffersonian government you propose?
Let me be clear, that if there was a practical way of achieving it, that would not cause undue suffering for myself or other Americans, I wouldn't oppose a minimal government. I just don't think there is a preexisting ideal government - we have to build on what exists.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Surely the state of the natural world is a major factor underlying all human societies? What do you consider "society"? The people at the mall?
Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
So anything outside the mall is fair game? What about the rights of our children to a world where all the animals havn't been wiped out?
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society
But chimpanzee society isn't the problem. The chimps "rights" have worked fine for millions of years. It's human society that is wiping them out.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2727131 - 05/25/04 10:05 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Surely the state of the natural world is a major factor underlying all human societies?
Sure. All societies are formed by a natural need for humans to get along.
Quote:
What do you consider "society"? The people at the mall?
Society is when humans form a community where they agree not to initiate force against one another.
Quote:
Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
So anything outside the mall is fair game? What about the rights of our children to a world where all the animals havn't been wiped out?
That is a responsibility we have to our children, but it is not a right.
Quote:
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society
But chimpanzee society isn't the problem. The chimps "rights" have worked fine for millions of years. It's human society that is wiping them out.
And what does that have to do with rights?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Then why bring up the issue of language and reason in the first place?
In any event, drawing the line at "our society" is a purely arbitrary function of anthropocentric bias.
No, they only extend to those within society. Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
And this justifies pre-emptively killing them because they might violate your own rights? Actually you're far, far more likely to be the victim of force or fraud by another human being than by an animal. You could just as easily argue that it's okay to curtail the liberties of other human beings because they might take advantage of those liberties to violate your own. But according to your premises, human beings are innocent until proven guilty, animals are guilty by definition.
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society. I do, however, consider it at least unnerving that we go into their society and kidnap them for scientific testing.
Apparently not unnerving enough to extend them the right NOT to be kidnapped and vivisected.
I have said no such thing.
You have said that animals have no rights vis-a-vis human beings. We can leave it to chimpanzees to decide their social rules among themselves. The question is what rights we choose to extend to them. If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that we extend them none because they are not a part of our society.
No, it has to do with the nature of society and our existence.
The nature of society and existence? Can that statement be any more vague? As somebody who has studied some anthropology, surely you are aware that different societies throughout history have often had wildly varying natures. There have been billions of people throughout history who believed that their own personal survival, salvation, happiness, whatever, had nothing to do with their own liberty as individuals per se.
It is not a double-standard because as I have said repeatedly said, rights are only relevant within society. For those that are not a part of society, human or animal, rights have no meaning.
They certainly have meaning for those, animal or human, who unwillingly come in contact with an alien society, one which refuses to extend their lives any consideration for the utterly arbitrary reason that they are not a part of that alien society. If animals had the option to live on a planet apart from human beings, you might have a point. As it is, we drag them into a world of our creation and then add insult to injury by refusing to give them any recognition within that world.
Sure, just as he might do to that person. In the absence of society, nothing is forbidden. However, you could simply agree not to initiate force against one another, and then form your own miniature "society.
He's just minding his own business. He wants nothing to do with their society. He has no desire to kill them, just to be left alone. By coming in contact with him, they have forced him unwillingly into their sphere of action. That's precisely my point: animals are unwillingly drawn into our sphere of action. They are given no choice to accept or reject this--they are simply used as means for human ends, with no more questions asked.
Ah, but natural law deals with the nature of these social negotiations and follows them to their logical conclusion. If people must agree to not initiate force against one another in order to survive, then it follows that this should be upheld consistently.
Once again, you make appeals to the "nature" of social negotiations as if there were some pre-established consensus as to what this is. And no, the absence of initiation of force does not necessarily promote survival: quite the contrary, there are occasions when the the individual must initiate force in various forms on others to ensure his own survival. Survival per se has nothing to do with rights--it has to with struggle, with "nature, red in tooth and claw." This is the only "law" that nature itself provides us with. Everything else is a creation of the human mind designed to soften this unpalatable reality. That doesn't mean that these things are undesirable--simply that they have nothing to do with nature.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I'll get to the specific points in that post later when I have more time, but for now I'd just like to point out that the absence of rights does not mean anything goes. An animal does not have a right to not be killed for no reason, but that does not mean it is a good thing to do. It is cruel to do so, and does not accomplish anything, but that does not mean it is a violation of its rights.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
but for now I'd just like to point out that the absence of rights does not mean anything goes.
Of course it does.
Say there's a man who is torturing a wild animal (i.e., not domesticated, doesn't belong to anyone). He's there, in a field, he's got the animal tied up. He is administering electrical shocks to the animal. Slicing its eyes with a razor blade. Slowly disembowling it while administering stimulants to keep the animal fully conscious during its torture.
According to your way of thinking, there is nothing that the police can do to stop him. He has rights, the animal doesn't. You cannot initiate force upon somebody who is initiating force upon a being that is not recgonized as having the right to be protected from such force. All you can do, I suppose, is stand there and shout at him "You bad man! You cruel man! You're a meany!"
Of course, in a civilized, sensible society the cops would just forcibly stop the maniac. But the arid and divorced-from-reality world of natural rights theory has no time for civilization, sensibility, or common sense: only for a set of arbitrary rules created by a group of people deluded enough to believe that they, and they alone, have a clear insight into the nature of things.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Ancalagon]
#2728175 - 05/25/04 02:54 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the initiation of force is wrong, regardless of a specific culture's view.
Id be so happy to see you prove this as an absolute undeniable fact, like e=mc2. I wont hold my breath while i wait tho!! (as if e=mc2 is really a fact anyway  )
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
No, they do not exist independently of man, nor did I say they did. They exist independently of man's subjective opinions, but they require humans in order to be relevant to humans.
Oh really?
Quote:
GazzBut said:
How can a concept such as natural rights exist outside the minds of men? Where does a concept live if it has existence outside of our minds?
You said: "I would think the name would be self-explanatory. They exist in nature."
Please at least try and be consistent!!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
An animal does not have a right to not be killed for no reason,
What does the "no good reason" have to do with anything? If they have no rights then why would you need a "good reason"?
Does this apply to human beings? Was there a "good reason" to kill Hitler? And if so, was this a violation of his "rights"?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2730710 - 05/26/04 12:29 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
No, they do not exist independently of man, nor did I say they did. They exist independently of man's subjective opinions, but they require humans in order to be relevant to humans.
Oh really?
Quote:
GazzBut said:
How can a concept such as natural rights exist outside the minds of men? Where does a concept live if it has existence outside of our minds?
You said: "I would think the name would be self-explanatory. They exist in nature."
Please at least try and be consistent!!
I am being consistent. You just refuse to see it. The nature of man's existence is still nature.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Echovortex, I concede that you make a valid point, but I think it's not the point you intended to make. Rather than disproving natural rights, you instead make a strong and convincing case for animals having natural rights as well. If no one can debunk this, I may have to consider going vegan(which really sucks, because I love meat).
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
PotSmokinHippie
daussaulit
DigitalDuality
ZeroRadius