|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted July 02, 2008 06:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And you violated the fetus' rights
The fetus, before creation, doesn't exist! It doesn't have rights.
Quote:
Yes he violated your rights
I didn't exist back then, and thus he did NOT violate my rights!
Quote:
Your system is WAY to flawed to make any reasonable sense and open to A LOT of exploits.
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
Quote:
What has this got to do with the fetus?
This was about your stupid WAR example. Don't blame me
Quote:
The only reason you repeat yourself is because I try to use examples and different angled arguments, you use the same arguments all over.
I say exactly the same about you.
Quote:
AND YES the government is to be blamed. If people in Hiroshima are born "strange" (because of radiation), the government has violated their rights.
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
I'm sorry, but I don't see ANYONE who blames the government for that. You are strange indeed.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 06:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The fetus, before creation, doesn't exist! It doesn't have rights.
Quote:
I didn't exist back then, and thus he did NOT violate my rights!
You have a problem reading my posts. I am talking about the 0.0000000000000001 moment after the fetus is conceived, thus it exists. At that moment, you violated his rights by giving him a disease life.
Quote:
Quote:
Your system is WAY to flawed to make any reasonable sense and open to A LOT of exploits.
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
Unlike you, however, I have given an example with the "government experiments" or with the "person camera" which, obviously, you ignored.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't see ANYONE who blames the government for that. You are strange indeed.
Sure, go in Japan, see if they blame, ok? It's so easy to talk from a safe distance indeed 
In the media, of course they don't, they don't have the power -- do you think anyone will publish that?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, go in Japan, see if they blame, ok? It's so easy to talk from a safe distance indeed
In the media, of course they don't, they don't have the power -- do you think anyone will publish that?
Again, you say: "It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."; because you haven't been in Japan, right? So HOW DO YOU KNOW?
And you said you are not subjective, huh?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 07:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Again, you say: "It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."; because you haven't been in Japan, right? So HOW DO YOU KNOW?
And you said you are not subjective, huh?
First of all I never said anything about people complaining, I only said that if they do so, they have the right (but of course not the power).
Secondly, Azagal said something like this and he has been there 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's maybe a good point but we still have to punish those that have conceived you by mistake.
Should we punish everyone who gives computers to people without electricity?
Quote:
But you can't "make up for him" with something as simple as that for a thing such as life
But he'd feel really good, I presume.
Quote:
So if they give you AIDS knowingly, you can't sue them?
As I said, diseases are harmful, and harming others is punishable.
Quote:
The problem is that in this case you're dead, so they can't sue you, but if you were alive, you would either violate their rights or YOU would have to pay the debt.
I'm not talking about any debt. Let's say that I am alive, and I just gave them the stocks. They just live on the stocks, not working. Then the market crashes. Is it my fault that they're poor now?
Quote:
Life is an exception, just like disease. There, better?
Well, a disease is harmful, so it should be put in the category of "violates rights" rather than just in the category of "given thing".
Quote:
I say that you need to have that right, not make "exceptions".
No. You say my system is open to abuse? Look at your system, where everyone is entitled to everything!
Quote:
Sure, go in Japan, see if they blame, ok?
It makes sense for them to blame the government. But they shouldn't blame Bohr himself. After all, it wasn't him that bombed them! And the bombing saved lives anyway. Much more people would have died in an invasion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 08:20 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:22, 02 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Should we punish everyone who gives computers to people without electricity?
Again, I must repeat myself, the computer is not a 'negative' gift, like a disease. Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean that it is negative.
Quote:
But he'd feel really good, I presume.
So basically you're telling me that all you want to do in life, is to get "high" and then you can die?
Quote:
As I said, diseases are harmful, and harming others is punishable.
And a life in which he starves because of you (he CANNOT feed himself, and you know that, whatever he does, not out of lazyness) is harmful. It's a harmful 'gift', that is felt continuously, not just when he is conceived.
Quote:
I'm not talking about any debt. Let's say that I am alive, and I just gave them the stocks. They just live on the stocks, not working. Then the market crashes. Is it my fault that they're poor now?
No, but see above with the computer -- the stocks are not a negative gift.
Quote:
Well, a disease is harmful, so it should be put in the category of "violates rights" rather than just in the category of "given thing".
Like I said so many times, distinguish between a "positive life" and a "negative life". In one in which he starves and he CANNOT do anything (because of YOU), it's definitely negative, just like a disease.
Quote:
No. You say my system is open to abuse? Look at your system, where everyone is entitled to everything!
You must have misunderstood how mine is. What do you mean by "entitled to everything"?
My system works simply with: If you directly influence someone (not subjective emotions like 'hate', but objective ones) and that is a negative influence, then it should be punished, you violated rights. The idea with the fetus is that he CANNOT survive without you (and that's because of you in the first place), even if he would want and work hard, he can't because you made him dependent on you. And you know that, and still let him starve.
Quote:
It makes sense for them to blame the government. But they shouldn't blame Bohr himself. After all, it wasn't him that bombed them! And the bombing saved lives anyway. Much more people would have died in an invasion.
So basically, if I pay someone to kill someone else, I can't be punished?
I understand what you meant, but if Bohr made the weapons for that purpose (what other purpose?) then he is to blame -- unless of course he was forced, but that's another story.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Again, I must repeat myself, the computer is not a 'negative' gift, like a disease.
Do you deny that giving someone a computer can impact them negatively?
Quote:
So basically you're telling me that all you want to do in life, is to get "high" and then you can die?
No, but here you're essentially making up for giving him life, and then killing him. Or is there more to it?
Quote:
And a life in which he starves because of you
No one's asking him to starve. I don't particularly want him to starve, but I'm not willing to give him my food. He doesn't starve because of me unless I'm actually stealing the food out of his stomach.
Quote:
the stocks are not a negative gift
Neither is life. The only negative gift is a gift that can only harm (like a disease, for example).
Quote:
What do you mean by "entitled to everything"?
You imply that there is such a thing as positive rights. I say that positive rights don't exist; only negative rights do.
Quote:
So basically, if I pay someone to kill someone else, I can't be punished?
If I am a carpenter and build a table, and someone uses that table to break someone's head open, does that mean that I'm responsible for it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you deny that giving someone a computer can impact them negatively?
What can a computer that doesn't work do anyway? Again, I am not talking about emotional impacts (like e.g: hate) 
Quote:
No, but here you're essentially making up for giving him life, and then killing him. Or is there more to it?
If you want to pay your debt for giving him life, you have to make sure that the life is a "positive gift" (not a negative one, see previous posts), thusly means you should not let him starve until he can feed himself
There's a difference between "I can't feed myself" and "I don't want to feed myself". The former is more important
Quote:
No one's asking him to starve. I don't particularly want him to starve, but I'm not willing to give him my food. He doesn't starve because of me unless I'm actually stealing the food out of his stomach.
First of all, can you please not quote part of my phrases?
Secondly, yes you want him to starve, because that's why: 1) you gave him life
2) you want to get rid of him, via abortion
Quote:
Neither is life. The only negative gift is a gift that can only harm (like a disease, for example).
And a life in which he is dependent on you and you let him starve is also a harm, like a disease, in fact even worse.
Quote:
You imply that there is such a thing as positive rights. I say that positive rights don't exist; only negative rights do.
What do you mean by positive rights?
Ok, simply put it, if you make exceptions for disease, then make exceptions for life as well
Quote:
If I am a carpenter and build a table, and someone uses that table to break someone's head open, does that mean that I'm responsible for it?
If the only reason you built the table was to break that someone's head, then yes, you are responsible and should be.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 09:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If I am a carpenter and build a table, and someone uses that table to break someone's head open, does that mean that I'm responsible for it?
If the only reason you built the table was to break that someone's head, then yes, you are responsible and should be.
No, you are only responsible for who gets their hands on the table(legal). Unless the law bans the table.
However i think the point of that is to point out the male involved should be forced to take responsibilety.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, you are only responsible for who gets their hands on the table(legal). Unless the law bans the table.
So let's say someone who sells deadly drugs is not responsible -- it's only the people that buy the ones who use the drugs, right?
Seriously, statements like "Unless the law bans the table" are again, exceptions, that are used because the system is flawed. So I'll play your game. Does the law ban atomic bombs? Or, frankly, why not make exceptions in my case?
Exceptions are always convenient, they allow you to close any arguments, since well, you have an "exception" for any difficulty encountered in your system.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What can a computer that doesn't work do anyway?
Be a home for disease-carrying rats.
Quote:
If you want to pay your debt for giving him life
And if I give someone a thousand dollars, does that mean I'm also in debt to them now? 
Quote:
Secondly, yes you want him to starve, because that's why: 1) you gave him life
2) you want to get rid of him, via abortion
No. If I wanted him to starve, I'd sew his mouth shut, or throw him in the basement, or do some other depraved thing like that. But I don't want him to starve. I'm ambivalent to him starving.
Quote:
And a life in which he is dependent on you and you let him starve is also a harm
Only emos view life as a harm.
Quote:
What do you mean by positive rights?
To quote Wikipedia:Quote:
a positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person to do something for someone, while a negative right merely obliges others to refrain from interfering with someone's attempt to do something.
To state the difference more formally, if 'A' has a negative right against 'B' then 'B' must refrain from acting in a way that would prevent 'A' from doing 'x'. If 'A' has a positive right against 'B', then 'B' must assist 'A' to do 'x' if 'A' is not able to do 'x' without that assistance. For example, a negative right to life would require others to refrain from killing a person. A positive right to life would require others act to save the life of someone who would otherwise die.
Quote:
Ok, simply put it, if you make exceptions for disease, then make exceptions for life as well
A disease isn't really an exception, though.
Quote:
So let's say someone who sells deadly drugs is not responsible -- it's only the people that buy the ones who use the drugs, right?
Yes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 12:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, you are only responsible for who gets their hands on the table(legal). Unless the law bans the table.
So let's say someone who sells deadly drugs is not responsible -- it's only the people that buy the ones who use the drugs, right?
The dealer knows the problems the drugs causes, even if the dealer did not know it.......... the problem about this is that the state/country bans drugs, if is is was legal you could get it in a store. And that is another story. Simply because if you got it in a store, you would know exactly what is in the drug.
Selling drugs is banned simply because of the problems that they end up causing. Also it is a matter of price, why would you want to buy heroin if you could get it cheaper in a official store owned by the state/country?
Alcohol is a drug, would you get in the backstreet by some dealer or by a official store? Alcohol is a mild drug compared to some of the other drugs that exist, and as of our culture it is not defined drug.
In the US, it is legal to sell guns(yupp). In a country like Norway it is way more complicated, you cannot just go into a store and buy one. The procces is far more complicated.
However where to buy the ammo needed is also an issue.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 01:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Be a home for disease-carrying rats.
how can rats get in a computer?
Quote:
And if I give someone a thousand dollars, does that mean I'm also in debt to them now?
You must really not understand what I am saying.
Life, by itself, is not a good thing and neither a bad thing -- it depends how it is done. To simplify the process, there are two cases to consider:
1) Bad life --> in which he only knows pain (let a fetus starve), this is a negative gift, much like disease
2) Good life --> in which you take care of him to have a "normal" life (that means he can survive, but not necessarily have luxury).
Also again, I am not talking about "emotional" gifts (like negative 'hate', etc). Hate and death (and consequently, torture) are two different things -- one is subjective, the other isn't.
Quote:
No. If I wanted him to starve, I'd sew his mouth shut, or throw him in the basement, or do some other depraved thing like that. But I don't want him to starve. I'm ambivalent to him starving.
So if you are ambivalent, then why did you brought him to life? This action, bringing him to life, makes you not ambivalent at all.
You say that you need to have rights and etc... well, you should have thought about that before getting pregnant, k?
Quote:
Only emos view life as a harm.
Sorry for my stupid definitions, but how do you view a life in which you can't do anything but be left to starve to death (and you CANNOT do anything, not that you DON'T WANT, which is an entirely different thing). The only purpose you have in life is to starve. How do you define that?
Quote:
a positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person to do something for someone, while a negative right merely obliges others to refrain from interfering with someone's attempt to do something.
Yes, it goes like this. No one forces you to get pregnant (even if you don't want it, it's still your freaking will to have sex). So, once you get, you will have "positive rights" for the fetus (or whatever that means).
The difference between, for example african children starving and the fetus, is that you have no connection to the africans, wheras you are directly responsible for the fetus, because it is you who brought him to life, it is you who made him dependent on you.
Quote:
A disease isn't really an exception, though.
But it is a "negative" gift.
Life has 2 sides, depending on how it's served. It can either be positive or negative. But I have explained that already too much by now.
Quote:
Quote:
So let's say someone who sells deadly drugs is not responsible -- it's only the people that buy the ones who use the drugs, right?
Yes.
Great, so let's not ban the guys selling weapons, dangerous drugs, and other stuff, right? We should only ban those that use them
The following also goes for @del_diablo.
The law always has some things it considers "dangerous" or "exceptions" (such as guns). In fact, why ban guns? Since the people have not used them yet (therefore not violated any rights), why ban people carrying guns, etc?? Why make this exception for guns and not make exceptions for abortion/fetuses as well? (such as not allowing people to make abortion, much like not allowing people to carry guns without permission).
I tell you why. Because the system is flawed. The thing with all these "strict" regulations is that the system has been abused and can be abused, so there are a few "exceptions" made to deal with them. Because the system is flawed.
I think that banning guns is also a violation of your personal rights to carry anything you want, see? Because you haven't yet used the gun, you can't be accused. This is an "exception" (what the government considers 'dangerous') because the system is flawed and needs exceptions.
In my case, using your flawed system, I'd say that you need to add the you give life to a baby, you are not allowed to not feed him, until he can do himself. Simple, as long as there are a lot of exceptions nowadays that 'violate' our personal rights (such as the gun example), why not make this one?
Of course this is completely subjective, and it's why the entire system is completely subjective. It is almost an impossibility to come to a consensus on a system that is flawed and needs "exceptions".
Why are guns banned? Because you might harm someone.
Why should abortion be banned (and you forced to give the fetus food until it can do it itself)? Because you harm it otherwise -- since it's you who gave it life in the first place. That's why you need to have a responsibility.
But if you will reply with a statement like "Fetuses are not exceptions, only guns are" then that wouldn't surprise me why this discussion is pointless -- it's like hanging on your beliefs or something without seeing and analyzing it from different perspectives. I've done so many examples in this thread that I am literally tired of commenting on it anymore.
So again, I have explained above why your system is flawed, don't make me explain it again.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 02:08 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 14:09, 03 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Great, so let's not ban the guys selling weapons, dangerous drugs, and other stuff, right? We should only ban those that use them
Exactly. We should not ban anything at all. The guy who violates the rights of others is the "negative" one (that means the one who USES the guns)
And no, you are completely subjective with banning guns/drugs. I mean, in an entirely objective view, nothing should be illegal to sell because it's not the seller's fault that the stupid buyer uses drugs or kills people with guns. If you impose restrictions especially on selling things, it is you who want a flawed and subjective system, since you somehow violate the seller's rights to sell what he wants (he just wants to sell & make money)
Quote:
So again, I have explained above why your system is flawed, don't make me explain it again.
No, that's your system which is flawed. In my system, nothing should be illegal to sell, and the seller is not responsible for what the buyer does with things bought from the store.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 02:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Exactly. We should not ban anything at all. The guy who violates the rights of others is the "negative" one (that means the one who USES the guns)
Do you have any idea of the consequences?
Maybe even nuclear bombs will be sold...
Quote:
And no, you are completely subjective with banning guns/drugs. I mean, in an entirely objective view, nothing should be illegal to sell because it's not the seller's fault that the stupid buyer uses drugs or kills people with guns. If you impose restrictions especially on selling things, it is you who want a flawed and subjective system, since you somehow violate the seller's rights to sell what he wants (he just wants to sell & make money)
That's because you try to view my system from the flawed system's eyes. I do not impose "restrictions" because there is only one simple rule actually (the one with the 'influence' I wrote a while ago). You may call them restrictions, but they are almost everywhere on the 'measurable' consequence (that means, objective), not "exceptions" for certain things... and besides, they will be considered pretty "natural" much like 'rights' are considered now 
But by your logic, you see all the cars around me violate my rights -- they pollute the air I breathe, in my home, for example
see how easy it is to point out flaws? (and thus, mvass will say this is an "exception" or an "entirely different case", but objectively it isn't)
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 14:15, 03 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
But by your logic, you see all the cars around me violate my rights -- they pollute the air I breathe, in my home, for example
So? You should sue the ones that USE the car, not the car builder or seller
Quote:
see how easy it is to point out flaws? (and thus, mvass will say this is an "exception" or an "entirely different case", but objectively it isn't)
Flaws in your system maybe. I mean, if you ban nuclear weapons/drugs/guns to sell, why not ban cars? Why make an exception?
And to quote you:Quote:
Do you have any idea of the consequences?
without cars?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 02:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So? You should sue the ones that USE the car, not the car builder or seller
But I can't!
much like I can't sue (in some countries) people that don't want to feed their baby (i.e something which they are responsible for).
Quote:
Flaws in your system maybe. I mean, if you ban nuclear weapons/drugs/guns to sell, why not ban cars? Why make an exception?
I don't ban cars, I ban 'gas', because that's what pollutes.
You have to understand that my system takes into account the purpose of an object. What's the purpose of cars? Not to kill, even though they can be abused (like I said, if you build a table and someone uses it crack a head, then you are not responsible, but if you build a table for that purpose, you are responsible, plain and simple).
What's the purpose of a nuclear bomb? Especially when sold to terrorists (for example), and the buyer knows that?
Please don't draw analogies from your system and include them in my system. At best, read my previous posts, I have already explained this countless times, I am getting tired of this.
Quote:
Quote:
Do you have any idea of the consequences?
without cars?
So basically this has come to 'convenience', since abortion is convenient for the mother
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 03:59 PM |
|
|
@Death, I'm shocked really by what you said in this thread. It seems mvass was right: you really are an authoritarian.
Some quotes from the "To donate or not to donate" thread:
mvass:Quote:
Let's see... you're anti-choice, against economic freedom and the free market, and want to teach religious creationism in schools. That makes you an authoritarian.
And then you replied:Quote:
Quote:
against economic freedom and the free market
Why are you shocked? From what you said in this thread, you are indeed against economic freedom and the free market. You are an authoritarian!
Here's the link to the thread: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=26649&pagenumber=4
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 04:03 PM |
|
|
Frankly I do not understand the point of your post.
But going by your logic, then the only system in which we're not authoritarians is complete anarchy.
I really don't want to get into a debate whether guns/etc should be banned or not (go ahead, call everyone that way authoritarian , so many countries are authoritarian it seems).
This thread seems to have been turned into a personal attack of some kind against me. I'll best ignore that anyway
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 04:29 PM |
|
|
The thing is, you are against economic freedom and the free market. Then why were you shocked when mvass told you this?
Quote:
This thread seems to have been turned into a personal attack of some kind against me
It's no personal attack. I just tell you how you are. And you seem to change your "views" very often (maybe because of lack of arguments?). I mean, first you didn't admit that you are against economic freedom and the free market, and now you say otherwise. Also, I remember you saying that selling guns is not a problem for the seller, because it's not his damn business what the buyer does with it. And I also remember you wanting to legalize drugs, because, if those stupid people want to suicide with the drugs, it's not the damn business of the seller.
Just look at this thread where you "defend" guns, and at this thread where you "defend" drugs.
There's also this thread where you "defend" both guns and drugs.
You can't just change your view because you want to defend your position when you don't have arguments
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
