Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So many people today seem preoccupied with defining everyone in “us” verses “them” categories. Whatever happened to “live and let live”? Your neighbors are not THE ENEMY.
Then you do NOT believe in the concepts of the founding of the United States, nor the U.S. Constitution.
So, you are promoting VIOLENCE as an acceptable response to a verbal comment? Do you know that if you do that you will be charged with assault, and battery, and other crimes and spend time in jail?
I am perfectly willing to live with any consequences of my speech in a free society. This is not a police state like the Leftists want, yet.
I do not like violence, but if you say something that insults a person, that person might react in a less lawful way. I have heard of cases where someone got killed for showing someone the middle finger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90
I call it a right, because denying an animal or a person the ability to fight back,would clearly be a wrong.
This is not about whether doing something IS right or wrong, but about whether someone HAS THE right to do something. A wrong is not even analogous to a right. You can't say I have the wrong to do something. You say doing something is wrong, which is a moral verdict.
Declaring some action a right is a human invention, sometimes of religious origin. Or simply to suggest that the action cannot be challenged by anyone. The invention of rights is a means to give a society of egoists rules.
Returning to animals in the jungle, who gives them the right to attack another animal? And is such an attack the animal's right? And is it right as in alright?
I do not like violence, but if you say something that insults a person, that person might react in a less lawful way. I have heard of cases where someone got killed for showing someone the middle finger.
And they get the Death Penalty or go to jail for LIFE.
Quote:
This is not about whether doing something IS right or wrong, but about whether someone HAS THE right to do something. A wrong is not even analogous to a right. You can't say I have the wrong to do something. You say doing something is wrong, which is a moral verdict.
Declaring some action a right is a human invention, sometimes of religious origin. Or simply to suggest that the action cannot be challenged by anyone. The invention of rights is a means to give a society of egoists rules.
Returning to animals in the jungle, who gives them the right to attack another animal? And is such an attack the animal's right? And is it right as in alright?
We are not animals in the jungle. We have the ability to think and reason. Many, including Nancy Pelosi, believe we have a divine spark, and that our Natural Rights come to us from our Creator. Government does NOT grant us rights. It only can make laws in an attempt to control us. If there were no government we would still have our basic human rights. They may be violated, but that doesn't mean we don't have them.
And they get the Death Penalty or go to jail for LIFE.
We are not animals in the jungle. We have the ability to think and reason. Many, including Nancy Pelosi, believe we have a divine spark, and that our Natural Rights come to us from our Creator. Government does NOT grant us rights. It only can make laws in an attempt to control us. If there were no government we would still have our basic human rights. They may be violated, but that doesn't mean we don't have them.
Here in Portugal they would get 25 (which is the max for the worst crime imaginable), but usually they are out after like 15 years or so.
I do think we are animals, evolved animals also have morals, societal rules, etc.
I don't believe in any of that religious mumbo jumbo. Rights are basically the complementary versions of laws, the former tell you what you can do and the latter tell you what you can't do. You have the right to live (unless you try to kill someone), laws forbid taking life (unless someone tries to kill you). There is nothing more natural about rights vs laws.
The concepts of rights and laws go back to ancient Egypt and Sumeria.
This is not about whether doing something IS right or wrong, but about whether someone HAS THE right to do something. A wrong is not even analogous to a right. You can't say I have the wrong to do something. You say doing something is wrong, which is a moral verdict.
Declaring some action a right is a human invention, sometimes of religious origin. Or simply to suggest that the action cannot be challenged by anyone. The invention of rights is a means to give a society of egoists rules.
Returning to animals in the jungle, who gives them the right to attack another animal? And is such an attack the animal's right? And is it right as in alright?
In the case of self defense, the right to defend yourself isn't one that can be granted -it's a natural right, with real consequences.
Right and wrong are analogous in this context, because preventing self defense could result in death, and a person prevented from defending themselves, and facing death, would have a very clear understanding of rights vs wrongs.
The animal doesn't need to be granted rights, as it's a natural right -nothing to do with Egyptians.
In the case of self defense, the right to defend yourself isn't one that can be granted -it's a natural right, with real consequences.
Right and wrong are analogous in this context, because preventing self defense could result in death, and a person prevented from defending themselves, and facing death, would have a very clear understanding of rights vs wrongs.
The animal doesn't need to be granted rights, as it's a natural right -nothing to do with Egyptians.
Again, I would not speak of rights when animals including humans behave instinctively. They would do the same things even if nobody said they have the natural right to do so. It is mere action and reaction. Instinct.
Plus, self defense is limited, at least here in Europe. It has conditions. I.e. it is subject to laws.
Sorry, it is just odd to say a buffalo has the natural right to defend itself against a lion. The buffalo couldn't care less about someone's definition of natural rights. It doesn't have a clue. All rights are inventions of humans.
Again, I would not speak of rights when animals including humans behave instinctively. They would do the same things even if nobody said they have the natural right to do so. It is mere action and reaction. Instinct.
Plus, self defense is limited, at least here in Europe. It has conditions. I.e. it is subject to laws.
Sorry, it is just odd to say a buffalo has the natural right to defend itself against a lion. The buffalo couldn't care less about someone's definition of natural rights. It doesn't have a clue. All rights are inventions of humans.
Self defense can never be limited - it's an act of self preservation, and exists regardless of laws.
Even this article starts with "everyone has a right to defend themselves, this much we all know" -it's not a right that can be granted or withdrawn though. It's a natural right that exists in proportion to our ability to be able to enforce it.
Largest gathering of dudes marching side by side exact 5 ft apart because they're totally not gay..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
