Another source of light pollution

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient
entities as having rights. You need to understand the concept
of rights to have rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to
appreciate that you have them; but you need not understand the
concept of rights them to have rights. After all, a newly born
infant, or comatose person, does not have the capacity to
understand much of anything - yet they have rights under our
(U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).

Which is to say, you choose to use words differently than anyone
else, and not admit it until called out on it.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient entities as
having rights. You need to understand the concept of rights to have
rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to appreciate
that you have them; but you need not understand the concept of rights
them to have rights. After all, a newly born infant, or comatose
person, does not have the capacity to understand much of anything - yet
they have rights under our (U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law does).
I recognize them as legal obligations placed on people to protect
those unable to protect themselves. This could apply to animals, as
well.

I am looking on at this and shaking my head and especially in a day where the Polish Government made it a criminal offence to say their authorities were complicit in national socialist extermination. Tepid and dull pronouncements may be fine for those who neither have head or heart however the issue isn't 'human rights' but how empirical science conjured up the notion of sub-human in order to create a narrative from white skin humans back to gorillas and baboons.

http://www.naturalselectionanddarwinism.com/nazism.html

The academic whitewashing is based on inserting ‘social’ before Darwinism but the central theme of Darwin’s ideology ( he wasn’t racist) is social/political distinctions of sub-human as props to suit an evolutionary story back to gorillas and baboons -

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.� Darwin

The Nazi had convinced themselves they were doing the world a favour by exterminating the untermensch using a contrived academic notion of cultural breeding and indeed many countries exported their Jewish ‘problem’ to these death factories by the same principle.

Any reasonable person expresses revulsion at the extermination of people and I was in Auschwitz this day last year to witness the cold, efficient way the Nazi went about it but I have never known a single person express the same revulsion at where the Nazi got their ideology from nor the whitewashing that went on in academic circles after the war.

“Though the great differences in the mental life and the civilization of the higher and lower races of men are generally known, they are, as a rule, undervalued, and so the value of life at different levels is falsely estimated. … [The] lower races (such as the Veddahs or Australian Negroes) are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes and dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives. … he gulf between [the] thoughtful mind of civilized man and the thoughtless animal soul of the savage is enormous – greater than the gulf that separates the latter from the soul of the dog� Haeckel

Too many airheads here unable to digest what is in front of them yet try to sound grand in their pronouncements. After WWII nobody, not even the Jewish , had the mental strength to question how the notion of sub-human entered through the university system, trickled down into high school education and out into the wider population.

Human rights - what do any of you know about humanity !.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:13:43 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law does).
I recognize them as legal obligations placed on people to protect
those unable to protect themselves. This could apply to animals, as
well.

I thinbk I understand. While I think I have a learned/innate sense of
right and wrong, Rights" are something we "fabricate"/establish and
they're only as reliable as those who will respect them.

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 5:37:05 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:

"The lion shall lie down with the lamb" shows a fundamental lack of
understanding of the dietary requirements of an obligate carnivore.

If God can change the thinking of a lion, God can also do some
recombinant DNA work and let it metabolize amino acids
differently. I mean, if I want to criticize the Bible, I can find
plenty of better stuff to start with...

like Deuteronomy 20:14.

John Savard

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:49:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

But yet the society at the time authorized the practice with its
laws.

Of course. Because these people had fewer rights, which was reflected
by the law.

No, the law *caused* them to have fewer legal rights. It did not
affect their human rights, it just meant the government was
responsible for violating their human rights in so doing.

Thus, they had equal rights, which the law criminally failed to
reflect.

John Savard

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Yes, it does. "Right" and "wrong" are human inventions as well. What
is right in one society may be wrong in another. There are no
absolutes here.

*Of course* there are absolutes in this matter!

Would _you_ want to be a victim of the next Holocaust?

No? Well then, if not, come and join us to make _sure_ that everyone
recognizes their obligation to obey the moral absolutes... and their
permission to intervene, by force, against anyone who doesn't.

So that there are no Holocausts anywhere.

John Savard

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:06:24 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient
entities as having rights. You need to understand the
concept of rights to have rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to
appreciate that you have them; but you need not understand the
concept of rights them to have rights. After all, a newly
born infant, or comatose person, does not have the capacity to
understand much of anything - yet they have rights under our
(U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).

Which is to say, you choose to use words differently than anyone
else, and not admit it until called out on it.

I make it clear how I'm using words.

When you get called out on it, yes.

This usage is not different
from anyone else.

Then why did you explain how it was different?

It's a perfectly common usage within moral
philosophy.

And it's in conflict with other common usages, whether you're too
****ing stupid to accept it or not.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:56:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L
Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:49:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

But yet the society at the time authorized the practice with
its laws.

Of course. Because these people had fewer rights, which was
reflected by the law.

No, the law *caused* them to have fewer legal rights.

Agreed. Because rights are ultimately defined by laws.

So, when you said that just because the law defined certain rights,
they weren't rights in your opinion, but now, you agree that rights
are defined by laws.

Can't keep your bull**** straight from one post to the next, eh?

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:56:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:49:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

But yet the society at the time authorized the practice with its
laws.

Of course. Because these people had fewer rights, which was reflected
by the law.

No, the law *caused* them to have fewer legal rights.

Agreed. Because rights are ultimately defined by laws.

It did not
affect their human rights...

It defined their human rights.

Thus, they had equal rights, which the law criminally failed to
reflect.

In plenty of societies people don't have equal rights. Indeed, that's
the historical norm. What we now have may turn out to be nothing but
an aberration.