asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Nov 16, 9:33*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:09:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:
But you only apply these good concepts selectively. "Enemy combatants"
were specifically defined by the US government to avoid applying the
Geneva Convention to prisoners of war so that they could be tortured.

Interrogated.

Many would, and do, disagree on that definition. It certainly isn't
clear cut.

WRT to slavery, recognition of the fact that a slave has a natural
right to freedom was the first step to ending slavery.
WRT to animals eaten by humans, consider that in the wild predators
sometimes start eating their prey while it is still alive.
Nevertheless, the prey animal has no right not to be eaten.

Do humans? In some situations, we are prey animals.

Humans have a natural right not to be killed and then eaten by other
humans. A lion might very well attack, kill and eat a human, but a
lion has no concept of rights, and therefore has no rights.

The point is, opinions are changing about the rights of non-human
animals. A significant minority of people now consider animals to have
rights, which extend in some cases to not being raised or hunted for
human consumption. What is a "right" or not changes with time and
culture- whether applied to humans or to animals.

So if a "culture" decides that some person (or group of persons) does
not have natural rights, you are OK with that? If you are not, by
what right would you intercede?

It is certainly conceivable that at some time in the near future
killing an animal, for food or otherwise, could be considered a
criminal offense, similar to murder.

ROTFLMAO! So will a lion who kills a human be placed on trial, in
front of a jury of his peers??

It just depends on how our
societal ethics evolve. We can grant rights to animals just as we do
to ourselves. But they are artificial constructs, not something that
comes from nature.

What will you do if "society" or "culture" decides to take away your
property. What right will you claim is being violated, now that you
have denied the existent of natural rights?

None of what you said above diminishes the fact that slaves have a
natural right to be free.

Sorry, you've said nothing to demonstrate that there is such a thing
as a natural right.

You simply cannot understand the concept.

I find it hard to believe that if there was a
natural right to be free,

Again, you simply do not understand the concept.

most cultures had (and operated
successfully) with slavery in place, throughout all of history. If
anything, that history demonstrates that slavery is the natural order
of things,

No, it isn't.

and our current lack of (organized) slavery is the
exception- perhaps short lived.

Throughout history most people were not slaves and did not own slaves,
most people do not murder, and most people do not steal, regardless of
what their societies might have allowed. You are attempting to use
cases where such things did happen as support for your twisted notion
that natural rights don't exist.

On 17/11/2011 11:14, wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:33 am, Chris L wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:09:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:
But you only apply these good concepts selectively. "Enemy combatants"
were specifically defined by the US government to avoid applying the
Geneva Convention to prisoners of war so that they could be tortured.

Interrogated.

Many would, and do, disagree on that definition. It certainly isn't
clear cut.

WRT to slavery, recognition of the fact that a slave has a natural
right to freedom was the first step to ending slavery.
WRT to animals eaten by humans, consider that in the wild predators
sometimes start eating their prey while it is still alive.
Nevertheless, the prey animal has no right not to be eaten.

Do humans? In some situations, we are prey animals.

Humans have a natural right not to be killed and then eaten by other
humans. A lion might very well attack, kill and eat a human, but a
lion has no concept of rights, and therefore has no rights.

The lion would probably disagree. It subscribes to the "Might is Right"
doctrine and will eat anything that it can catch and kill or force
another weaker preditor to relinquish. We are just another animal to it.

The point is, opinions are changing about the rights of non-human
animals. A significant minority of people now consider animals to have
rights, which extend in some cases to not being raised or hunted for
human consumption. What is a "right" or not changes with time and
culture- whether applied to humans or to animals.

So if a "culture" decides that some person (or group of persons) does
not have natural rights, you are OK with that? If you are not, by
what right would you intercede?

We already have a concrete example. Waterboarding by the USA - a torture
practice so vile that you dare not do it on American soil.

It is certainly conceivable that at some time in the near future
killing an animal, for food or otherwise, could be considered a
criminal offense, similar to murder.

ROTFLMAO! So will a lion who kills a human be placed on trial, in
front of a jury of his peers??

You have read it back to front.

UK has done it for hunting foxes. The result is rather messy. Main
effect has been to cause hunt saboteurs to give up chasing hunts.

Killing swans in the UK is an offence against the Crown. Poaching
rabbits after dark is punishable by transportation to the Antipodes.
(although Australia no longer admits convicted criminals today)

Killing CITES I listed species is seriously punished if the poachers can
be apprehended.

It just depends on how our
societal ethics evolve. We can grant rights to animals just as we do
to ourselves. But they are artificial constructs, not something that
comes from nature.

What will you do if "society" or "culture" decides to take away your
property. What right will you claim is being violated, now that you
have denied the existent of natural rights?

I don't actually think owning property is a *natural* right as such. It
is a concept that civilisations have invented. Hunter gatherers are
probably the closest to understanding what natural rights really are.

None of what you said above diminishes the fact that slaves have a
natural right to be free.

Sorry, you've said nothing to demonstrate that there is such a thing
as a natural right.

You simply cannot understand the concept.

I find it hard to believe that if there was a
natural right to be free,

Again, you simply do not understand the concept.

most cultures had (and operated
successfully) with slavery in place, throughout all of history. If
anything, that history demonstrates that slavery is the natural order
of things,

No, it isn't.

Actually I think you will find it is. There is still a fair amount of
slavery practised in the world today despite it being nominally banned.
Illegal but you don't have to look very hard to find it going on.

Even more occurs if you count the hidden bonded labour and slum dwelling
wage slaves in sweatshops who are paid a pittance to make clothes and
trainers for Western consumers.

and our current lack of (organized) slavery is the
exception- perhaps short lived.

Throughout history most people were not slaves and did not own slaves,

Which planet have you been living on? From the very first time that
agriculture and surpluses of food have existed there have been slaves
and slavery. The rich and powerful with total mastery over the poor.

The proportion of slaves has varied but was around 40% in the late Roman
empire and was considerably higher in some African nations. It is only
post Wilberforce that slavery was seen as a bad thing. First he stopped
the UK slave trade in 1807 and later slavery itself in 1833 (sort of).
Until that time slavery was widely viewed as oiling the wheels of
commerce. The slave trade triangle was incredibly profitable to
merchants and many sugar/cotton fortunes were made from it.

As soon as there is a heirarchy their are necessarily a few leaders
right at the top of the tree and a lot of people stuck at the bottom.

The code of Ur-Nammu shows the Sumarians had established rules on
slavery over 4000 years ago (and it was not new then - theirs is just
the oldest set of written laws that have been found and deciphered).

most people do not murder, and most people do not steal, regardless of
what their societies might have allowed. You are attempting to use
cases where such things did happen as support for your twisted notion
that natural rights don't exist.

I think some natural rights do exist - to life and liberty for instance.

The only cultures that did not have slavery were the hunter gatherers
who were kept far too busy just trying to stay alive to develop a
complex stratified society with sophisticated ownership rules.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:14:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So if a "culture" decides that some person (or group of persons) does
not have natural rights, you are OK with that? If you are not, by
what right would you intercede?

I don't need to be okay with it. It is the choice of society. If it is
my society, I can lawfully try to change things, or I can unlawfully
try to change things, and in the latter case the society is perfectly
justified in removing me- by exile, imprisonment, or death.

If I chose to intercede, it would be by personal choice, not by any
right.

ROTFLMAO! So will a lion who kills a human be placed on trial, in
front of a jury of his peers??

No, a human who kills a lion could be placed on trial. Because we
could decide that lions have the same "right" to life that humans do.

What will you do if "society" or "culture" decides to take away your
property. What right will you claim is being violated, now that you
have denied the existent of natural rights?

I live in a society now where there is a consensus definition of
"rights". That defines our rights. If the current society operates
outside that definition, then I would claim my rights are being
violated- but certainly no natural rights. I would use the means
available to me to fight for those rights- legal means or illegal,
depending on how strongly I felt about the abrogation.

Sorry, you've said nothing to demonstrate that there is such a thing
as a natural right.

You simply cannot understand the concept.

I understand the concept just fine. I simply see no shred of evidence
that such a thing exists, except as a human concept.

Throughout history most people were not slaves and did not own slaves,
most people do not murder, and most people do not steal, regardless of
what their societies might have allowed.

I agree that most people do not steal, except from outsiders, and most
people do not kill, except for outsiders. But you are completely wrong
about slavery. Most cultures have practiced it. Societies that
maintained systems incorporating slavery are widely the norm.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
| On 17/11/2011 11:14, wrote:
| What will you do if "society" or "culture" decides to take away your
| property. What right will you claim is being violated, now that you
| have denied the existent of natural rights?
|
| I don't actually think owning property is a *natural* right as such. It
| is a concept that civilisations have invented. Hunter gatherers are
| probably the closest to understanding what natural rights really are.
|
The territorial nature of the animal is as natural a right as any right
can be. The bird constructs a nest to the exclusion of other birds
(its mate and offspring excepted), the fox and bear owns its den,
the Englishman owns his castle. There are no natural rights; society
can only exist if it is recognised that the natural needs of the herd
are mutually beneficial and accepted as laws that even the king must
obey. The laws embody your rights, you have the right to do anything
you want that is not forbidden by law. Bad laws are those that forbid
you doing something that is considered immoral by the majority.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:57:48 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:
I think some natural rights do exist - to life and liberty for
instance.

What parts of Nature (except human societies) grant you there rights?
And aren't all those deadly diseases we fall victim of gross
violations to out "natural right" to life? And who/what is the
offender in that case?

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:40:15 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:
the Englishman owns his castle.

Only a tiny minority of all Englishmen own a castle......

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:23:48 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
I don't need to be okay with it. It is the choice of society. If it
is
my society, I can lawfully try to change things, or I can unlawfully
try to change things, and in the latter case the society is
perfectly
justified in removing me- by exile, imprisonment, or death.

Justified? Wouldn't it be better to say the society had the power to
do it? Or was e.g. Hitler justified to execute those who tried to
change his society unlawfully, because there was no lawful way to try
and change it?

On 17/11/2011 17:34, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:57:48 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:
I think some natural rights do exist - to life and liberty for
instance.

What parts of Nature (except human societies) grant you there rights?

A strong wish to stay alive! A guiding characteristic of most life.

Granted that most top preditors see us as no more than meat on two legs.

And aren't all those deadly diseases we fall victim of gross violations
to out "natural right" to life? And who/what is the offender in that case?

I blame various defective deities project specifications for that.
Or was it Pandora for opening that nice looking box...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:40:15 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
| the Englishman owns his castle.
|
| Only a tiny minority of
ignorant ****ing morons snip the point being made in the hope of
being seen as a smartarse.

On Nov 17, 6:36*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Only a tiny minority of all Englishmen own a castle......

True, but it's a figure of speech. To fool the average Englishman into
believing he actually owns something. Rather than still owing the bank
the interest on the repayments.

Justified? Wouldn't it be better to say the society had the power to
do it? Or was e.g. Hitler justified to execute those who tried to
change his society unlawfully, because there was no lawful way to try
and change it?

There is not one national leader who would stand aside to save his
country. To suggest that they would accept the will of the people, as
the people's right, is akin to believing in gods and fairy stories. It
just isn't so. Power corrupts. Whether it be a silverback ape. Or a
dictator in a shiny suit. Discussion of change is automatically
subversion, a revolution or treason punishable by death. No leader, on
our broken planet, can point to their own behaviour as an example to
others. Blind respect for hierarchy is our ape people's genetic flaw.
One which divides and rules by overwhelming, physical force and
fear.