3 of 3
3
Guns vs God Fallacies
Posted: 25 June 2013 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 25 June 2013 03:51 AM

I wasn’t making any argument to appeal to majority. My point was that there are no such thing as absolute rights in the universe for humanity or any other being. We create them by convention. And so any government’s constitutions have no absolute validity in “nature” for which you were claiming there is by implication. Just because a constitution was created for your country on paper that declares itself eternal doesn’t mean it must. In fact, the same can be argued for a constitution in a Communist country. Imagine this: “Oh, damn, I know our [Communist or X, or Y] system is bad, but the constitution was written long ago and declared itself eternal. Therefore, we must abide it no matter what!” That’s your argument.

The Constitution is not eternal as we can modify it. But natural rights are eternal. The Constitution is written to form a government to protect them.

Are you even being serious? I am certain that you get the argument and are just playing the duck.

I was being serious as I did not understand your point. A spear can be either an offensive or defensive weapon. Same with a shield. 

In ‘nature’, I have every right to kill you just for being paranoid that you might harm me by whatever means. In fact, in ‘nature’, I have a right to torture you just because I’m bored and want to practice my hunting skills like a wild cat may to an animal it doesn’t need or intend to eat. Other than human convention, what do you suppose a “right” is?

A right is a pre-existing principle of freedom. 

Again, you’re being obscure. I think that in your mind, you seem to think that there is an innate set of entities or absolutes that assure that there are rights and wrongs even without humans being there to use them. I’m guessing that you are a theist considering you seem to think you know the correct versions of rights and wrongs that only entities like gods declare.

Nope, not a theist. The concept of natural rights does not require any god and predates Christianity.

It’s not possible for a government, being a group of people in and of itself, to be overtaken by insurrection without them thinking that you are the ones in the wrong. Thus, to them, regardless or how evil you could choose to declare them, they would see you as the evil ones. It is always the victor that declares the other as tyrannical and evil. If Hitler succeeded and Germany had a society that existed based on his philosophy today, they would interpret their ways as just. Even if such a society frowned upon his genocidal decisions, they would be just as trivialized in the modern context as the average American views the genocide of North American natives and slavery of the Africans.

Just because different sides declare each other evil doesn’t mean that the concepts of good and evil are arbitrary. That communists declared Nazis evil and Nazis declared Communists evil didn’t stop them both from being evil. And the genocide of the North American natives and the slavery of the Africans is not trivialized in modern America, it is something taught to every American in elementary school.

Scott Mayers - 25 June 2013 05:57 AM

You are incorrect. Nationalized industries is not nationalism as the Germans understood it; Nationalism referred to

National Socialism, German Nationalsozialismus, also called Nazism or Naziism,  totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy. 
      from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405414/National-Socialism

Although this source points out its emphasis to the dictator, the people would not have viewed him personally as the essential reason for voting in him (no one anywhere actually reasons, “Let’s follow one person’s arbitrary desires because we like to be submitted to tyranny.”) The people’s [German aboriginal’s that is] admiration for him was that he empowered them by their sense of heritage and superiority, a strong patriotism that united them by embracing their common ancestral “rights”, as they saw it.

The people of Germany did decide to follow Hitler’s desires, as they voted to give him dictatorial powers. And I wasn’t saying that nationalism depends on nationalized industries, those are a facet of socialism.

All our democratic societies today have way more nationalized industries than Hitler ever did. You obviously didn’t watch the documentary that I referenced that showed how the Bush administration indirectly nationalized it’s preferential powers by handing contracts to particular private industries that are the core of the Republican Party’s foundation. By taking the decisions out of the democracy’s capability to oversee, those industries have no accountability to the people of the United States who vote. This is an indirect way of tyranny because only Republican Party supporters actually decide what those businesses do because the supporters and the companies are one and the same. This is even sneakier than what Hitler even proposed because, at least, he was open and honest about who actually had the authority to govern these businesses. Also, if Hitler was overthrown within his own government, the people would still be able at least to retake the reigns over those nationalized corporations. In America and similar Capitalist societies, this isn’t possible any longer. You, as a citizen, are not able to have a say in those companies that are not part of the actual federal government. I urge you to watch the documentary. You asked for that evidence and I gave it to you. It’s now your burden to actually look at it.

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Also, what makes you think this documentary is at all truthful? The presidency does not have the power to just hand contracts to particular private industries of its choice. I would be more concerned with the influence of the large public employee unions, which the Democratic party answers to, and which feed off of the taxpayer, which really are a subversion of democracy.

Like the spears and shield example I gave, you are just playing the duck here. [Playing the duck = acting like a decoy duck does to hunting: faking an innocent dummy to coax the prey in to shoot.] Nuclear Arms are to countries as fire arm are to individuals. Your distinction is insincere to reason.

Not meaning to act like any “duck” at all. Nuclear weapons are to countries what firearms are to individuals, but you were asking does an individual have the right to possess a nuclear weapon.

I already argued the relativity of what one group of people consider evil or violent to another. You’d have to provide evidence that demonstrates that the other sides sincerely believe that they are inherently evil—that they believe that they are ‘wrong’. I also clearly pointed out that villains do not attempt to appear like comic villains because they don’t see themselves as such, contrary to what you want to think. For example, Hitler’s mustache that was uniquely definitive of him and scares people today was inspired by Charlie Chaplin (He didn’t know he was Jewish.) He wanted to look admirable as his hero. Another example: the Hitler salute was inspired by America’s Pledge of Allegiance salute. Only after WWII did the American’s decide to change the salute to placing one’s hand to their chest over their heart’s instead. Even another example: the Swastika that is a symbol of fear to most people today was actually a cool looking symbol, unique, and quite an attractive piece of art. It wasn’t designed as an evil insignia. In contrast, most countries do not think of their flags as magical insignias of essential pride to entrench an absurd law to make it illegal to burn like the American’s do. To them, it’s freedom of speech. Only American flags get burned elsewhere because it represents such an insignia to them as the Swastika did to Germany then.

Yes, the Finnish army I believe had swastikas on their military vehicles. Some people mistakenly see those and think they are German military vehicles from WWII, but the German vehicles had a cross symbol. That said though, I disagree that it is relativist to determine what is an evil regime or not. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out whether it is safer to visit France or Iran, Germany or North Korea.

Watch the damn documentary I presented for such example’s of abuses. Homeland Security is the same as Hitler’s policing organizations (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitspolizei). The term, “Homeland Security” is friendly sounding term. But it’s superfluous in meaning considering American’s already have the FBI for internal security policing, the CIA for external security policing, a Secret Service for top secret Government protections, regular police forces for State and City governments, police for special cases like Highway Patrols, Sheriffs (originally, land right protection police [other country’s sheriffs usually only serve as rentalsmen or real estate right protectors.]
  The terms governments that conservatives create are always rhetorically created for emotional affect. For example, the Estate Tax, a tax for real estate inheritance was renamed, the Inheritance Tax by the Bush administration to garner fear that people are losing something by inheriting anything.

Both sides pull that stunt of naming things in completely rhetorical ways. And the Estate Tax (or Inheritance Tax, whatever they want to call it) is a wealth (i.e. property) tax and as such should be done away with IMO. I agree that Homeland Security is probably a useless organization, but that doesn’t mean that its creation implied a tyranny or anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233 This is another example of how your Republican government likes to name things. In this case, they wanted to hide the relevance of this act by labeling it with as much an innocuous description as possible. Executive Order means that it was a law commanded and enacted by the President alone! That is, an exemption to skip your elected Representative.

Executive Orders are not laws commanded and enacted by the President alone, they are ways of enforcing existing law on the books. Again, the president cannot create laws. Only Congress can do that. That said, that appears to have been a stupid executive order.

The Iraq war was a scandal, as the rest of the world and half of your own population clearly sees it.

It wasn’t a scandal, and what “the rest of the world” and “half of the population” thinks is irrelevant to what the facts are.

[ Edited: 25 June 2013 02:38 PM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17

The appointments to oversee Wall Street which pretended to investigate the frauds that the big bankers, brokers and other wealthy and powerful schemers but did not even try to put any of them in jail is another example. Likely, the schemes would have linked the cons directly to the politicians and friends as the investors who gained from them. It was not rationally possible not to discover anything since there were plenty of people willing to come forward to prove this but were absolutely ignored! The billions of dollars stolen by these people ruined the economy and harmed people in more real ways than what President Clinton did. His act to “get a blow job” is a personal indiscretion that has zero effect to other people’s lives and fortunes. Other than his own personal relationship, the only people it had any consequence to is to religious assholes who seem to think somehow their god is going to curse America or something. Also, the costs to the taxpayers by the Republican Congress to attempt to indict him was another absolute rhetorical device meant to create a monster out of a Democrat when they had nothing real to actually vilify him with.

I agree on the issue about Bill Clinton. I am not interested in the private lives of officials. Also ironic was one of the main people who went after him was Newt Gingrich, who himself cheated on his wife. Regarding holding Wall Street accountable, well the Democrats were in control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate for the first two years of Obama’s presidency and didn’t hold anyone’s feet to the fire. Regarding oversight in the run-up to the crisis, that was the result of numerous problems, from the SEC being understaffed to the complexity of the modern financial instruments.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 02:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 25 June 2013 08:13 AM

Watch the documentary. Here it is again:  Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers . The State of Israel itself is a contentious issue that Republican defenders pretend are good people without warrant. Republicans have always supported them regardless of their ever more National Socialist attitudes similar to the Nazis they were targeted by. And their National Socialism is Constitutionalized! The belief that Christ will come down only when the Jewish Temple is rebuilt necessarily requires that Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to support them.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Any person of any faith can live safely there. Muslims don’t have to fear for their safety living in Israel. Jews do have to fear for their safety living anywhere else in that region. And Israel is not anywhere remotely close to being “National Socialist.” If some extremist Jew takes over the country with a dictatorship, granted him by the Israeli people, and declares that all Muslims must die, then that will be Hitler-like, but otherwise, the only countries in that region that resemble the Nazis are all of the ones bent on destroying Israel. And a documentary like that still doesn’t prove that Bush was any dictator/tyrant/National Socialist. 

See the Executive Order link in the previous post.

That just had to do with access by historians to the president’s records after they leave office. It has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

Saddam didn’t have WDMs. Where were you when the one single informant who gave the justification for the second Iraq War by Bush was blindly trusted without normal justification procedures that even a local newspaper is assured to follow? This wasn’t a simple accidental oversight. All news publications, scientific journals, ordinary police officers, and any everyday Joe wants corroboration to determine any serious accusation to charge someone of offense. Am I able to accuse anyone of a crime, not to mention, in anonymity, and have someone, not just charged with whatever offense, but convicted without authorities corroborating the evidence? It isn’t possible that even the dumbest President would not question it without being sincerely crooked and deceptive himself. And certainly, a whole large organization of highly trained CIA agents could not have had at least one person who would question the integrity of such a claim. It is like a guard at a Nazi an extermination camp declaring oddly that he didn’t notice the population of people had any Jews!

Your criminal comparison doesn’t hold here. You make it sound like Saddam Hussein was just minding his own business, then suddenly President Bush said, “He has WMDs! Let’s invade!” Hussein had a history going back years regarding trying to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons (and having used chemical weapons) and of being a brutal tyrant. Colin Powell blew his reputation over this issue. He would not have done so had he not believed all of the evidence about Hussein’s WMDs. and we know that Hussein did have the ability to quickly scale up his WMD production and he may have had WMDs but managed to move them out of the country prior to the invasion.

The Nazi Government was extremely small. To govern requires those who govern to have control on what happens. I think a “dictatorship” tends to suggest extremely limited government, wouldn’t you say? Also, the Nazi’s believed in economic freedom. That freedom was limited to the German Aryan race, however. In Americas origins, they too had a selective mindset as well, considering they didn’t invite the large Native population as relevant to land ownership and other economic freedoms.

1) The Nazi government was not small. A dictatorship requires a large bureaucracy to run things. Also, the term “limited government” means limited with regards to being involved in people’s lives.

2) The Nazis did not believe in economic freedom. They were a form of socialists and ran the economy via state direction (which also required a large bureaucracy).

3) America’s treatment of the Native Americans and blacks was terrible, but it is something the country moved itself away from (and went through a civil war about in the case of the slavery).

You made more distinctions without actual differences in this quote more than ever. Conservative and Liberal are appropriately understood by intelligent people everywhere in the same way. You have to provide evidence where such and assumption that others presume otherwise rather than just making it up. Where you get the idea that anyone would ever presume “liberal” mean right is absurd. In fact, more likely, you yourself do not know the actual meanings. Liberalism, is understood everywhere to mean a political philosophy which grants the right of all individuals the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want as long as they do not infringe on the same freedoms (liberty) of other people to do and be the same. For example, I am able to smoke pot, for instance, in such a philosophy, if only I act in such a way that it could not possibly limit another person’s liberty to exist freely. This is considered contentious by some even who are ‘liberal’ because some believe that it does infringe on other people’s rights to the liberties of life they choose. We do not allow murder because if I have such a freedom, then it means that I can limit another person’s freedom to live.

Look up the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom or in Australia. Look up neoliberalism and critics of it. Liberal in other countries means right-winger from an economic standpoint. Only in America does it mean a left-of-center person. Conservative also has different meanings outside of the United States. In America, the left tend to adopt the socially-liberal aspects of liberalism but not the economic aspects. So-called liberals in this country seek to regulate and control pretty much every aspect of people’s lives with the exception of abortion and same-sex marriage. Conservatives in America are very liberal economically and in most ways, but do seek to regulate people’s lives regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, and sometimes sex period.

Contrary, Conservatives (a rather inexact term because only in a contemporary reference does it imply any special philosophy because the conservatives of Lincoln’s day were actually of the Democratic Party which defended the older ways of slavery, for instance), want the older ways of religious absolutism of morality that dictates from things like the Bible what should be right or wrong, not a convention of people who vote for what is moral based on a freedom to do anything you want.

I agree that conservative is an inexact term, but the morality you speak of that conservatives in modern America adhere to only infringes on freedoms in certain ways which I mentioned above. Otherwise, it is very much a philosophy about allowing people the freedom to do anything they want. For example, you do not find conservatives in America seeking to dictate to people what kind of toilets they can keep in their homes, what kind of light bulbs they can use (the legislation was signed by Bush but the ban itself was inserted by Nancy Pelosi), what kind of shower head you can have in your shower, how much money you can make, what kind of car one can drive, etc…

President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You’re_either_with_us,_or_against_us This source also references and links you to the actual speech in full. He didn’t ‘just mean’ that. What you miss that other nations don’t is that they pay attention to media more globally than most Americans. We watch all your media as well as our own with the same fervor. You miss how our own politicians act globally and then get American political responses.

I read the speech and saw the quote in context, and IMO it has been taken out of context. What Bush was saying is what I said, that if you are aiding the terrorists, you will not be considered a friend of the United States. If you are not aiding the terrorists, then you will be devoted to helping bring the terrorists to justice. In that sense, either countries were with the United States or with the terrorists. And I highly doubt that all that many non-Americans watch “all American media.” For example I don’t imagine the average French person or German person watching something like Fox News.

Prior to 9/11 Bush was pushing for war with Iraq and our countries were not convinced through the U.N. Bush was denouncing the U.N. because they wanted to act but the majority of all democracies represented by them did not have legitimate logical grounds for war. And on 9/11, Bush unilaterally decided to go to war without the U.N. (majority of all democratic nations) Only Britain and Australia gave their full support and were given this attention by America. Bush claimed in the speech things like Al Qaeda as being associated with Iraq which were blatantly false. Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan which was relevant because that is where the terrorist of 9/11 were from. We also all knew that the Arab nation was also at fault because that is where Osama Bin Laden’s family, finances, and support were from. America tolerated the totalitarianism and tyranny of Arab and even Pakistan which were more of the cause of 9/11 than Muslims from anywhere else.

The UN is not representative of democracies, it is representative of quite a few tyrannies as well. It is really a joke of an organization. And some of the nations were not eager for any war because it would cost them money (France for example lost business with Hussein).

Every large country has it’s horrors that they’ve done to their own people throughout history. It doesn’t justify anything. But it should point out that acts done in the name of all political philosophies have equal credit to severe injustices. What bothers me is when people credit certain ideologies with the innate justification for atrocities that occurred inappropriately. Bush’s acts for instance are due not to American ideology of philosophy. They are his and those who support him alone.

Bush did not slaughter anyone like the Soviets did their own people and others.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 03:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
LogicMan - 25 June 2013 01:58 PM

The Constitution is not eternal as we can modify it. But natural rights are eternal. The Constitution is written to form a government to protect them.
...
A right is a pre-existing principle of freedom. 
...
The concept of natural rights does not require any god and predates Christianity.

What is your logical argument to support these statements?

LogicMan - 25 June 2013 01:58 PM

Are you even being serious? I am certain that you get the argument and are just playing the duck.

I was being serious as I did not understand your point. A spear can be either an offensive or defensive weapon. Same with a shield.

You’re trivializing the distinction by appropriating a relative definition that is irrelevant to the discussion. An iron, candlestick, or pipe, can be all used as weapons similarly. They can also be used defensively in similar contexts as well. But why doesn’t a dictionary define these terms in those respects. You won’t find the definition of an iron as a device that can be used as either a defensive or offensive weapon to harm or protect oneself. in any dictionary, even though they are true. You’re evading reasonable argumentation by diverting the ordinary meaning of what weapons or defenses actually functionally and intentionally mean.

LogicMan - 25 June 2013 01:58 PM

Just because different sides declare each other evil doesn’t mean that the concepts of good and evil are arbitrary. That communists declared Nazis evil and Nazis declared Communists evil didn’t stop them both from being evil. And the genocide of the North American natives and the slavery of the Africans is not trivialized in modern America, it is something taught to every American in elementary school.

Define good and evil; right and wrong.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 26 June 2013 03:25 AM

What is your logical argument to support these statements?

My logical argument, well let’s see. I’d say that life forms are basically sophisticated forms of chemistry that reproduce. Life started off as a self-replicating molecule, evolving gradually over time into more complex self-replicating molecules, eventually forming the first single-celled life forms, which then continued developing into the multi-cellular life forms of today. Life forms are born naturally into freedom and must seek food to reproduce and also possess the ability to protect themselves from other life forms that would kill them (usually for food). As such, all life forms have a natural right to protect themselves as self-protection is a part of existence for all life. Life forms are free unless another life form seeks to oppress them in some manner. With humans, since we are so prone to killing each other, one way for us to live peacefully is to create a government that protects our pre-existing natural rights, such as our right to protect ourselves. Other natural rights are things like one’s right to live their life as they please so long as they are not harming anyone else, right to free speech, right against unreasonable search and seizure by the government, right to privacy, etc…

You’re trivializing the distinction by appropriating a relative definition that is irrelevant to the discussion. An iron, candlestick, or pipe, can be all used as weapons similarly. They can also be used defensively in similar contexts as well. But why doesn’t a dictionary define these terms in those respects. You won’t find the definition of an iron as a device that can be used as either a defensive or offensive weapon to harm or protect oneself. in any dictionary, even though they are true. You’re evading reasonable argumentation by diverting the ordinary meaning of what weapons or defenses actually functionally and intentionally mean.

Okay, you mean tools that are specifically designed to be used as weapons. However, I wouldn’t put a shield into the same category as say an iron or a pipe. A shield is specifically designed as a tool for war, and depending on the design, can serve as primarily a defensive device or equally an offensive or defensive tool. For example, the Greek hoplites carried a shield that could also be used to thwack their opponents with.

Define good and evil; right and wrong.

In this case, I’d say evil is when one person, group of people, or philosophy seek to kill and/or destroy other peoples because it disagrees with them in some way. Good is when one is not evil.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 04:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
LogicMan - 26 June 2013 02:14 PM
Scott Mayers - 26 June 2013 03:25 AM

What is your logical argument to support these statements?

... Life forms are born naturally into freedom and must seek food to reproduce and also possess the ability to protect themselves from other life forms that would kill them (usually for food). As such, all life forms have a natural right to protect themselves as self-protection is a part of existence for all life. Life forms are free unless another life form seeks to oppress them in some manner. With humans, since we are so prone to killing each other, one way for us to live peacefully is to create a government that protects our pre-existing natural rights, such as our right to protect ourselves. Other natural rights are things like one’s right to live their life as they please so long as they are not harming anyone else, right to free speech, right against unreasonable search and seizure by the government, right to privacy, etc…

So you seem to agree that even things like bacteria have these natural rights. So doesn’t this propose that we defend the right for all living things in the same manner? Perhaps we can presuppose that one who washes their hands should be charged with the mass genocide of billions of innocent Bacillus, Clostridium, Sporohalobacter, Anaerobacter and Heliobacterium, just to name a few. If humans have the only exemption to these “natural rights”, what is your argument for our special privilege?

Likewise, why do we not go further and include non-living matter in all its forms? Should we leave the nature of a raw ore undisturbed because it alters its natural inclination to be what it is?

If this is absurd to you, we can bring the reality closer to home…should the natural nature of the predators of any species have a right to life since they must kill other animals in order to survive? Do prey have a better right to life if they do not require killing other animals?

If you accept the premises of evolution, then could you not agree that we humans are also continuing to evolve and that divisions such as races that may eventually not be able to breed with each other justify intolerance toward one another if they are in competition to survive? What is unnatural about selectively declaring one group of human species deserving or undeserving of rights since they both may require killing each other in order to survive?

LogicMan - 26 June 2013 02:14 PM

You’re trivializing the distinction by appropriating a relative definition that is irrelevant to the discussion. An iron, candlestick, or pipe, can be all used as weapons similarly. They can also be used defensively in similar contexts as well. But why doesn’t a dictionary define these terms in those respects. You won’t find the definition of an iron as a device that can be used as either a defensive or offensive weapon to harm or protect oneself. in any dictionary, even though they are true. You’re evading reasonable argumentation by diverting the ordinary meaning of what weapons or defenses actually functionally and intentionally mean.

Okay, you mean tools that are specifically designed to be used as weapons. However, I wouldn’t put a shield into the same category as say an iron or a pipe. A shield is specifically designed as a tool for war, and depending on the design, can serve as primarily a defensive device or equally an offensive or defensive tool. For example, the Greek hoplites carried a shield that could also be used to thwack their opponents with.

If a shield is specifically designed as a tool for war, what does that make a gun then?

LogicMan - 26 June 2013 02:14 PM

Define good and evil; right and wrong.

In this case, I’d say evil is when one person, group of people, or philosophy seek to kill and/or destroy other peoples because it disagrees with them in some way. Good is when one is not evil.

So if you try to kill a person who is offensively placing a gun at your head who just believes its necessary to do so for their own needs or philosophies, because you disagree with them, are you not just as wrong?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 08:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 26 June 2013 04:33 PM

So you seem to agree that even things like bacteria have these natural rights. So doesn’t this propose that we defend the right for all living things in the same manner? Perhaps we can presuppose that one who washes their hands should be charged with the mass genocide of billions of innocent Bacillus, Clostridium, Sporohalobacter, Anaerobacter and Heliobacterium, just to name a few. If humans have the only exemption to these “natural rights”, what is your argument for our special privilege?

Our special privilege is that there is no way for all life to co-exist at once. Certain life forms survive by feeding on others. Since we are humans, we apply our protections for our natural rights to our fellow humans. We also protect ourselves from non-human life forms of all kinds, but note that we do not treat those life forms in the way that we treat humans. If a bear breaks into your home and goes into the refrigerator, we don’t arrest and charge that bear, then send it to jail or prison. Our fellow human beings, however, may not infringe on anybody’s natural rights.

Likewise, why do we not go further and include non-living matter in all its forms? Should we leave the nature of a raw ore undisturbed because it alters its natural inclination to be what it is?

Ore isn’t a life form, it’s just a material.

If this is absurd to you, we can bring the reality closer to home…should the natural nature of the predators of any species have a right to life since they must kill other animals in order to survive? Do prey have a better right to life if they do not require killing other animals?

All life forms have a right to life in that one should not go about just killing them unless they present some large threat.

If you accept the premises of evolution, then could you not agree that we humans are also continuing to evolve and that divisions such as races that may eventually not be able to breed with each other justify intolerance toward one another if they are in competition to survive? What is unnatural about selectively declaring one group of human species deserving or undeserving of rights since they both may require killing each other in order to survive?

“Race” doesn’t really exist. And the distinguishing feature of humans is our capability for higher level reason. You can’t have a conversation with other creatures about how to live in harmony.

If a shield is specifically designed as a tool for war, what does that make a gun then?

A tool designed for war. That’s what arms are. The basic tools of war. That is why the Second Amendment protects the right of the citizens to possess arms. Because war is not just something that countries do to one another. War is something individual humans can make on one another. If you are trying to kill me, you’re making war one me. So it is my natural right to possess the basic tools of war to be able to make war back at you to protect myself. That is why police officers carry guns as well.

So if you try to kill a person who is offensively placing a gun at your head who just believes its necessary to do so for their own needs or philosophies, because you disagree with them, are you not just as wrong?

You are not just as wrong, because you are acting in self-defense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2013 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I think I’ve argued this fairly and clearly, Logicman. Hopefully, you will absorb it on your own now. I’m certain that you are intelligent enough to at least understand why people have a good justification to be concerned about unrestricted gun ownership. Thanks for the debate.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3