|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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...... |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
"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. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Close approach planetoid. | Sjouke Burry | Misc | 1 | February 5th 08 01:19 AM |
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Red Planet set for close approach | Nick | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 29th 05 02:29 PM |
Cassini-Huygens makes first close approach to Titan | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | October 26th 04 05:06 PM |
Observing 4179 Toutatis near close approach | Astronomy Now Online | UK Astronomy | 1 | September 17th 04 06:02 PM |
Mars Looms Big & Bright as It Nears Record-Breaking Close Approach | Ron Baalke | Misc | 4 | August 10th 03 08:15 AM |