|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 01, 2008 09:11 PM |
|
|
Argh, stupid 20 posts in 24 hours limit... 
Quote:
He wouldn't have been born at all
I understand the analogy, but I assumed that we're still following it, i.e. without the disease, he would have been born as a normal baby.
Quote:
That's pretty subjective, very hard to measure.
I know, but you have to acknowledge that some damage has been done. Therefore, shouldn't you make it up somehow? According to your logic, I mean.
Quote:
Obviously I say you have to make up for him somehow, because you did insult him.
Yes, but how, exactly? Do you have to make prosthetic arms for him so he'd be able to enjoy it?
Quote:
So tell me, when you unintentionally hit someone with a car (and doesn't die), isn't your responsibility FIRST to call 911 or bring him yourself to the hospital?
But you're not actually giving anything to the guy you hit, unlike to the fetus and to the kid with no arms.
Quote:
Why do you think people rather die than be tortured?
Yes, but you are not torturing the fetus. To torture him, you have to actually physically do something unpleasant to him.
Quote:
You give him a miserable life, you violate his rights.
No, you don't. Let's say that we have a treatment that cures depression 100%, but it's expensive. Do the people with depression have the right to everyone else's money so they wouldn't have a miserable life? I think not.
Quote:
The latter case does not violate his rights because he lets you do it (children want to live with food).
Right, but being forced to give him food violates your rights.
Quote:
As long as the child dies because of hunger, then that is objective proof that he suffered -- thus you violated his rights.
Wrong. You're assuming that the child has the right not to suffer to the extent that if he is suffering by himself (that is, no one is physically torturing him), he has the right to receive whatever he needs to stop suffering. I don't think that he does, because he has no right to anything you have.
Look at it this way. Let's say you and Joe Smith go to an auction. They are auctioning off a computer. Joe Smith needs a computer to work. You are just getting one for entertainment. But you can afford to spend more money. So let's say you're both bidding for the computer, and he bids $1000, since that's the most he can afford to pay, and you bid $1500, so you get the computer. On the way home, Joe Smith says, "Hey, I want your computer. I need it more than you do." This is true. And it is your fault that he doesn't have a computer. But does he have the right to your computer? Sure, giving him your computer would be a nice thing for you to do, but does he have the right to your computer? I would say that he definitely doesn't.
Quote:
For one, you can't give them life and then refuse to feed them -- that is torture.
Yes, you do, because it isn't torture. Torture is something that someone does. How can you torture if you don't do anything? And they don't have a right to food.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 09:24 PM |
|
|
Wow so many quotes 
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously I say you have to make up for him somehow, because you did insult him.
Yes, but how, exactly? Do you have to make prosthetic arms for him so he'd be able to enjoy it?
Insults are not that big deal, you can make up for him by giving him something he likes (money, food, etc).
Quote:
But you're not actually giving anything to the guy you hit, unlike to the fetus and to the kid with no arms.
You must be joking You're giving him money (treatment, etc), similar to the fetus (food is bought with money).
Quote:
Yes, but you are not torturing the fetus. To torture him, you have to actually physically do something unpleasant to him.
And you do it by letting him starve -- remember that he is in this world because of you.
Quote:
No, you don't. Let's say that we have a treatment that cures depression 100%, but it's expensive. Do the people with depression have the right to everyone else's money so they wouldn't have a miserable life? I think not.
First of all, depression is subjective. It varies with person. Starving, and death, is not. And yes your child has the right to your food -- because you gave him life (see below).
Quote:
Right, but being forced to give him food violates your rights.
You should've thought about that before giving life to him 
Quote:
Wrong. You're assuming that the child has the right not to suffer to the extent that if he is suffering by himself (that is, no one is physically torturing him), he has the right to receive whatever he needs to stop suffering. I don't think that he does, because he has no right to anything you have.
Don't you get it? It's your responsibility to treat him when HE CANNOT (a child, again, has no INCOME, get it?). Because you brought him up in this situation, one in which he DEPENDS on you. Therefore, it is your fault that he is in this way, therefore you are forced to give him food, until he can do so by himself.
Quote:
Look at it this way. Let's say you and Joe Smith go to an auction. They are auctioning off a computer. Joe Smith needs a computer to work. You are just getting one for entertainment. But you can afford to spend more money. So let's say you're both bidding for the computer, and he bids $1000, since that's the most he can afford to pay, and you bid $1500, so you get the computer. On the way home, Joe Smith says, "Hey, I want your computer. I need it more than you do." This is true. And it is your fault that he doesn't have a computer. But does he have the right to your computer? Sure, giving him your computer would be a nice thing for you to do, but does he have the right to your computer? I would say that he definitely doesn't.
But of course, the computer was not his (nor yours) in the first place! The life of the fetus is its from the start.
Take it like this. You see a boy somewhere. Knowing that in his life he is not wanted (so to speak), he wants to commit suicide. But you stop him, thus "give him life" (in a way) (conceive the fetus). But by doing so, you make him dependent on you. If you treat him, he will be happy. If you don't, you just put him in a situation where he starves to death --> is tortured. You violated his rights, because you put him in that situation (analogously, you stopped him from suiciding, which is a violation of his freedom!). For what? To die starving? meh.. such a selfish lust for pleasure (the mother) not caring for others involved.
Quote:
Yes, you do, because it isn't torture. Torture is something that someone does. How can you torture if you don't do anything? And they don't have a right to food.
You did something. You gave him life, and you made him DEPENDENT on you. So you did something -- if he wouldn't be conceived at all, he wouldn't suffer. But you conceived him, and let him starve. That is worse than not being conceived at all. See? You did something. Torture
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 09:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wow so many quotes
Then I must apologize in advance, because here come some more.
Quote:
Insults are not that big deal, you can make up for him by giving him something he likes (money, food, etc).
Yes, but then he'll still have the finger puppet as a reminder of your insult.
Quote:
You must be joking
No, you misunderstood me. When you conceive a fetus or give a kid a finger puppet, you are actually giving something to them. When you run somebody over, you're not giving anything to them at that moment.
Quote:
And you do it by letting him starve -- remember that he is in this world because of you.
It's here because of me, yes, but I don't see why it has the right to my food. Let me put it to you simply. Unless they have violated your rights, nobody ever has the right to anything anybody owns.
Quote:
You should've thought about that before giving life to him
Just because you give someone an Xbox doesn't mean that you have to give them a TV to use it. Just because you gave someone life doesn't mean that you have to give them hormones or food to enjoy it.
Quote:
Because you brought him up in this situation, one in which he DEPENDS on you. Therefore, it is your fault that he is in this way, therefore you are forced to give him food, until he can do so by himself.
Wrong. You can only talk about fault and being forced to do something for someone when you have violated their rights. Here, you have not violated the fetus's rights, whatever they may be. When you beat somebody up or run them over, you are violating their right to self. But the conception of a fetus is not a violation of the right to self, since the fetus does not exist before conception, and therefore has no rights (or do you think that nonexistent beings have rights?).
Quote:
But you stop him, thus "give him life" (in a way) (conceive the fetus). But by doing so, you make him dependent on you.
You: Hey, don't commit suicide, suicide is stupid. You'll miss whatever chance you'll have at a better life.
Boy: k. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the advice, mister.
At what point have you become responsible for his life? 
Quote:
But of course, the computer was not his (nor yours) in the first place!
In the first place, the life didn't exist until you gave it to the fetus.
Quote:
That is worse than not being conceived at all. See? You did something. Torture
No, it's not. You are not actually doing anything to torture him, so it's not torture. If you were poking him with hot irons, that'd be torture. But you're not. In fact, you're not doing anything to him. You gave him life, then you left him alone.
If you give someone a thousand dollars and they buy a gun and shoot themselves, does that mean that you're responsible for it? Similar with a fetus.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 09:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but then he'll still have the finger puppet as a reminder of your insult.
Any guy will remember his accidents but that doesn't mean he can't forgive you if you make up for him in some way 
Quote:
No, you misunderstood me. When you conceive a fetus or give a kid a finger puppet, you are actually giving something to them. When you run somebody over, you're not giving anything to them at that moment.
Giving life for the purpose of being let to starve to death is like giving him a device that tortures him. And he can't stop it.
Quote:
It's here because of me, yes, but I don't see why it has the right to my food. Let me put it to you simply. Unless they have violated your rights, nobody ever has the right to anything anybody owns.
But you violated its rights. Let me tell you something like this. Suppose you save someone's life, and he has no limbs left, so he can't move. That men would have suffered a less terrible death than being left to starve.
Then you put him in your home and lock him up. This is basically what you're doing with the fetus. He has no limbs and he can't survive without you, but remember that you brought him in your home in this miserable situation -- he would have preferred to die back then if he knew this was your intent.
You have an obligation in this case to feed him, not let him starve. Because you brought him in your house.
Quote:
Wrong. You can only talk about fault and being forced to do something for someone when you have violated their rights. Here, you have not violated the fetus's rights, whatever they may be. When you beat somebody up or run them over, you are violating their right to self. But the conception of a fetus is not a violation of the right to self, since the fetus does not exist before conception, and therefore has no rights (or do you think that nonexistent beings have rights?).
See my 'suicide' analogy. No one wants to be born to starve to death. So the fetus wants to suicide, but you stop it, and conceive it. Thus you violate its rights.
Quote:
You: Hey, don't commit suicide, suicide is stupid. You'll miss whatever chance you'll have at a better life.
Boy: k. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the advice, mister.
You don't just give him an advice, you forcefully stop him, and you also make him dependent on you -- you stop him from suiciding knowing he will not be able to live without you.
Quote:
No, it's not. You are not actually doing anything to torture him, so it's not torture. If you were poking him with hot irons, that'd be torture. But you're not. In fact, you're not doing anything to him. You gave him life, then you left him alone.
So basically, you say that forcingly moving someone in your home (body) knowing he can't move (has no limbs) and let him starve to death is not torture? You moved him in your home and let him starve (outside he would not, and in fact, wouldn't even be your business what happened to him).. I think it's an action you did that tortures him. You did it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 11:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Any guy will remember his accidents but that doesn't mean he can't forgive you if you make up for him in some way
Yeah, but every day this kid will wake up looking at the finger puppet and say, "I wish I had arms." You're causing him additional anguish. You've made up for the original insult, but not for the damage it could potentially do on an everyday basis.
Quote:
Giving life for the purpose of being let to starve to death is like giving him a device that tortures him.
No, it's not. When you are using the device to torture him, it is by your will and action that he is being tortured, that is, you want him to be tortured and so you are torturing him. When you let him starve to death, it has nothing to do with your will, except that it is not your will to feed him. You may not want him to be tortured, but you don't particularly care if he lives or not, either. Thus, his suffering is independent of you.
Quote:
Suppose you save someone's life, and he has no limbs left, so he can't move... Then you put him in your home and lock him up.
You violate his rights when you lock him up. But, again, this is not like a fetus, since when the creation of a fetus doesn't violate anybody's rights, since it has to exist for its rights to be violated.
Quote:
You have an obligation in this case to feed him, not let him starve.
This case is entirely different, since you violated his rights.
Quote:
So the fetus wants to suicide, but you stop it, and conceive it.
??? How can anything that doesn't exist want anything? Let me remind you that regardless of whether you think a fetus is alive when it's viable or if it's alive before that, it surely isn't alive before conception.
Quote:
You don't just give him an advice, you forcefully stop him
Then you violate his right to take his own life. And if he still wants to commit suicide, you are violating his rights by keeping him alive.
Quote:
you say that forcingly moving someone in your home
If you think that a fetus has rights prior to conception, then failing to conceive that fetus should likewise be a crime, no?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 02:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, but every day this kid will wake up looking at the finger puppet and say, "I wish I had arms." You're causing him additional anguish. You've made up for the original insult, but not for the damage it could potentially do on an everyday basis.
If he doesn't want it, why not take it from him? He would surely let you do it
Quote:
No, it's not. When you are using the device to torture him, it is by your will and action that he is being tortured, that is, you want him to be tortured and so you are torturing him. When you let him starve to death, it has nothing to do with your will, except that it is not your will to feed him. You may not want him to be tortured, but you don't particularly care if he lives or not, either. Thus, his suffering is independent of you.
But you gave him life, thus the torture is your own fault.
Quote:
You violate his rights when you lock him up. But, again, this is not like a fetus, since when the creation of a fetus doesn't violate anybody's rights, since it has to exist for its rights to be violated.
Bringing him to existence is like violating his rights, if he does NOT want it -- and trust me, no child wants to die starving. (he doesn't appear out of the blue, again, you "drag in" the sperm or whatever is required).
Quote:
??? How can anything that doesn't exist want anything? Let me remind you that regardless of whether you think a fetus is alive when it's viable or if it's alive before that, it surely isn't alive before conception.
It isn't alive, but you make him alive -- therefore you do something that will affect his life. Is that not a violation, if he does not want it?
Quote:
If you think that a fetus has rights prior to conception, then failing to conceive that fetus should likewise be a crime, no?
See above.
But let tell you again that the computer analogy is not a 1 to 1 good one -- for one, computers can't be "bad". Life is not necessarily a gift. There are two type of 'life':
1) Normal one where he has the necessary components to live (doesn't suffer because of you)
2) Miserable life where he dies starving and wishes he wouldn't have been born
There is a crucial different and not both are "positive" or "gifts". I can't find an example with computers that has a 'miserable' consequence, that's why it's not necessarily a good analogy for this subject.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 02:28 PM |
|
|
@Death
The thing is, the fetus doesn't exist before it is created, so you can't say I violated its rights (because something that doesn't exist doesn't have rights). Moreover, you can't say I don't let it suicide, because "it" is no such thing.
If I give life to someone (means that someone didn't exist before) then I don't owe that someone anything. Nothing at all.
If I create a clone then I certainly am NOT obligated to take care of the clone's life (that means food, clothes, education, etc) since I didn't violate anyone's rights by creating the clone. Even if you say the clone didn't want to live, I'll point two things:
1) It didn't exist before, so it has no rights
2) How do you know it doesn't want to live since it didn't exist? This is absurd! Maybe AFTER the creation it doesn't want to live, but then I don't violate its rights by leaving it to starve.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 02:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing is, the fetus doesn't exist before it is created, so you can't say I violated its rights (because something that doesn't exist doesn't have rights). Moreover, you can't say I don't let it suicide, because "it" is no such thing.
You used the suicide analogy in the first place (and I thought you were keeping that), that's why I used it too
I don't really get your definition of "rights" or "violation". I understand the fetus doesn't have rights before he is conceived. But I think of it like this. Do you influence his life in any way? Yes, and in fact you influence it because you give it.
Quote:
If I give life to someone (means that someone didn't exist before) then I don't owe that someone anything. Nothing at all.
You owe him the fact that you made him dependent on you. Simply put, you influence it's life, and not in a positive way.
Quote:
If I create a clone then I certainly am NOT obligated to take care of the clone's life (that means food, clothes, education, etc) since I didn't violate anyone's rights by creating the clone.
Apart from this being very selfish, it is also a violation. You influence someone -- you violate his rights, because you took a part in his life (call it freedom, etc).
You create a clone, you do something with it's life, that means you manipulate the things the clone is made of. Thus you influence it's life -- and not in a "positive" way. To me that sounds like a violation.
For example, do you think that creating a clone specifically for being tortured (you 'design' it that way with biological engineering), and suffers every second (you 'design' it that way), do you think that this is not a violation of it's rights?
It may not be a direct violation, but just as in the 'disease' example, you influenced it's life in a negative way -- thus you violated it's rights.
Basically, I can create a deadly virus, and spread it in the world. You can't seriously tell me that I violated anyone's rights, since the virus is alive on it's own, not a property of "mine" (doesn't even 'listen' to me, it's beyond my control). Or, I can design clones that start to kill and take over the world (I can't be blamed, right, since they are alive, they're not my property; unless you think that if your child commits a crime you are responsible for it). See where this selfish and narrow-minded view of your "rights" leads to?
Or maybe I can design a disease and put it in every new born fetus (through the mothers) and make him suffer each second? I wouldn't be violating the fetus' right, since it wasn't even born, right? Or maybe, you're telling me that I violate the mother's right? Sure, in a way, even though the disease is 'alive', but let's say it's my property. Then are you telling me that the mother has the right to do that to her child? To modify her own body so the fetus suffers every second? Of course, she modified the body before the fetus was born, so she didn't "violate" any of the fetus' rights?
Please, if you tell me you agree with the above and you think the mother has that right, then I don't think there's anything else to discuss.
Seriously, I can't believe people can even think like that. Rights are not something that appear out of the blue -- it's whether you influence someone's life or not. Since we can compare it to e.g normal people, then we can see whether it is "negative" or "positive".
Quote:
2) How do you know it doesn't want to live since it didn't exist? This is absurd! Maybe AFTER the creation it doesn't want to live, but then I don't violate its rights by leaving it to starve.
Do you want to live when you know you're going to starve or you are a "mistake" that needs to be wiped out?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you influence his life in any way? Yes, and in fact you influence it because you give it.
To influence something means that it must exist. Since the fetus doesn't exist before you give life to it, you DO NOT influence it in any way by giving life. You can't both give and influence something at the same time
Quote:
You influence someone -- you violate his rights, because you took a part in his life (call it freedom, etc).
Again, I can't influence something that doesn't exist. Freedom is gained only after you gain life.
Quote:
For example, do you think that creating a clone specifically for being tortured (you 'design' it that way with biological engineering), and suffers every second (you 'design' it that way), do you think that this is not a violation of it's rights?
No, since it suffers by itself. I give life, the clone doesn't even exist before and thus it has no rights. If it suffers (is tortured) without my intervention after I give life, I don't violate anyone's rights.
Quote:
Or maybe I can design a disease and put it in every new born fetus (through the mothers) and make him suffer each second? I wouldn't be violating the fetus' right, since it wasn't even born, right?
Born and created are two different things. To be born and to exist is completely different.
Quote:
Do you want to live when you know you're going to starve or you are a "mistake" that needs to be wiped out?
I don't want anything at that point, since I don't exist
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:13, 02 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
To influence something means that it must exist. Since the fetus doesn't exist before you give life to it, you DO NOT influence it in any way by giving life. You can't both give and influence something at the same time
You are contradicting yourself -- you can give someone a disease, and thus influence his life really, really negative. Yes, disease is a 'gift', a negative one.
When you give a fetus life, you are actually giving him a disease, because he will suffer through starvation.
Quote:
Again, I can't influence something that doesn't exist. Freedom is gained only after you gain life.
You are not getting me. You influence his life when he is already conceived. And you do that negatively -- that is, when you give him "life", you are making him dependent on you -- thus, you are giving him a "disease" if you let him starve
Quote:
No, since it suffers by itself. I give life, the clone doesn't even exist before and thus it has no rights. If it suffers (is tortured) without my intervention after I give life, I don't violate anyone's rights.
You have a problem understanding what is "life". Life is not necessarily a "positive" gift, please read again my previous posts.
I'm wondering why didn't you answer my question. Do you think that a mother has the right to modify her "body" in a way to make the fetus suffer in every second? Remember that the fetus is not "alive" yet, so she can do it, right? Basically, are you saying this is not a violation of his rights?
Let me put this simply. You give a clone life. It does not want to starve (when it is alive), so it would want to KILL ITSELF. But you designed it in a way that it can't. For me, that is a violation of its rights. You "designed" it that way, with the incapability of suiciding ('dependent' on you), you influenced its life and its rights. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Do you mean that, I can put radioactive materials and then, when new people are born (and affected thus), does that mean that I did not violate any of their rights? (remember it only affects new-borns). I influenced their life -- if it wasn't for me, they wouldn't suffer. Thus, I violated their rights. What is so hard to understand?
If it wasn't for me, they wouldn't suffer -- VIOLATION of rights in a way. You are simply using a VERY flawed system of rights. If you keep on that, I'm sorry but I will not attempt to discuss with such a selfish attitude by bending the "right" and laws to our convenience while others suffer because of it
Quote:
Born and created are two different things. To be born and to exist is completely different.
How convenient is to use these two distinct subjective definitions and escape the main point. No, I disagree, if you are "born" you "exist". I can't see the difference (unless of course born is for living beings, but I also say the fetus is living)
Quote:
I don't want anything at that point, since I don't exist
I wasn't talking at that point
Why, why can't you draw analogies from what you want? The fetus can't "want" but he feels like us -- why do you think he does want to starve if you, as a person, does not want?
Draw analogies from you instead of making stupid analogies that you KNOW they are false.
EDIT: Ok here's a new example. Suppose you create a deadly virus that will take effect after 10 years. Nobody is affected until 10 years (let's say nobody is even born).
Then, after 10 years, they are affected by the virus, thus you violated their rights. They can sue for that.
So with the fetus. You have sex (make the virus) and conceive the fetus, to be aborted. Plain and simple, he can sue you for giving him life (after he is conceived he does it) if he finds it miserable (a virus life in which he starves). Of course the fetus can't sue you (he can't talk), but the government can say that you violated his rights. Protects the innocent and weak against you -- because you think you can feast on the weak and those dependent on you if they are in your way, because of you.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 04:28 PM |
|
|
@Death:
Bleh, you twist all of my meanings. It is completely useless to discuss with you.
Quote:
You are contradicting yourself -- you can give someone a disease, and thus influence his life really, really negative. Yes, disease is a 'gift', a negative one.
No, I don't contradict myself AT ALL. If it is CREATED with the disease, I don't influence its life with the disease, since it doesn't exist before it has the disease!
What is so hard to understand that before you CREATE the fetus (NOT BORN!), it DOESN'T EXIST. IT HAS NO RIGHTS. Thus, by creating it, no matter the purpose, you don't violate its rights since IT DOESN'T EXIST, not even as a non-living being! And this means YOU CAN LEAVE IT TO STARVE, since you are not obligated to help someone whose rights you did not violate.
Quote:
I'm wondering why didn't you answer my question. Do you think that a mother has the right to modify her "body" in a way to make the fetus suffer in every second? Remember that the fetus is not "alive" yet, so she can do it, right? Basically, are you saying this is not a violation of his rights?
The problem is, this is a stupid example and proves that you didn't understand me (or you don't WANT to understand me). In this case the fetus EXISTS, in my case IT DOESN'T.
Quote:
Let me put this simply. You give a clone life. It does not want to starve (when it is alive), so it would want to KILL ITSELF. But you designed it in a way that it can't. For me, that is a violation of its rights. You "designed" it that way, with the incapability of suiciding ('dependent' on you), you influenced its life and its rights. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Before it exists, it doesn't have any rights. However I design it, it doesn't matter, the result is the same: I did NOT violate anyone's rights! PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Quote:
The fetus can't "want" but he feels like us
No, he doesn't feel anything if it DOESN'T EXIST (this means it isn't even conceived yet). How can something that doesn't EXIST (NOTE: I didn't say "How can something that is not BORN") want something?
Quote:
Ok here's a new example. Suppose you create a deadly virus that will take effect after 10 years. Nobody is affected until 10 years (let's say nobody is even born).
Then, after 10 years, they are affected by the virus, thus you violated their rights.
No, I didn't violate their rights, because when I released the virus, there was nobody affected and thus I didn't violate anyone's rights. They didn't exist back then and thus there were no rights to violate.
And how do you know that because I live in this very moment and type this message, 10000 humans won't suffer in the future? Did I violate their rights?
How about this: let's say I go and buy the last apple in a store, and then someone comes that has a disease that can be cured only by eating an apple (and he will die soon and painfully, so he can't go to another store). Oh yeah, I violated his rights because I "let him suffer" (because I bought the last apple), right?
And don't start with: "If you gave him the disease, it's your fault". If he had the disease SINCE THE MOMENT HE BEGAN TO EXIST, then I didn't violate anyone's rights because someone that doesn't exist has no rights. If, however, I gave him this disease when he was even as a fetus, then he did exist and I did violate his rights (even though a fetus doesn't have "rights", but I'm trying to play your game)
When I give life to a fetus, it already is dependant on me, thus it's like it was created with the disease, and as I said above, I don't violate its rights because it doesn't EXIST before it is dependant on me. Doesn't exist = no rights
For the last time:
EXIST =/= BORN
Oh, and one last explanation: Before the fetus is conceived, it doesn't "want" or "feel" anything, since it doesn't exist, right? It doesn't have any rights. If I conceive ("create") the fetus dependant on me, I don't violate anyone's rights since before it doesn't HAVE ANY! Got it?
Then, if I don't want to give it food, I don't violate its rights. Quite the opposite: if I was obligated to give it food, my rights would have been violated.
I don't care if you disagree with the above explanation, it's objective: something that doesn't exist doesn't have rights! It doesn't matter how is created (with malfunction, etc), it still has no rights until it is created!
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 04:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If he doesn't want it, why not take it from him? He would surely let you do it
If a fetus doesn't want life, why not take it from it? It would surely let you do it
Quote:
But you gave him life, thus the torture is your own fault.
No, it's not. If you give someone a gun as a gift, are you responsible for everything they do with it? Does that mean that the parents of criminals are automatically liable for what their children do?
Quote:
Bringing him to existence is like violating his rights, if he does NOT want it
But at the point of conception (or, rather, the instant just before conception), he doesn't want anything because he doesn't exist. He doesn't want to be created, and he doesn't not want to be created. He doesn't want anything. Before conception, he has absolutely no will either way.
Quote:
It isn't alive, but you make him alive -- therefore you do something that will affect his life.
Okay, time for another analogy! Let's say I get really rich, and have a lot of investments in the stock market. I have kids, I die, and they inherit my stocks. Then the stock market crashes, and they are impovershed. They lose a lot of money. Does that mean that I violated their rights when they got the stocks?
Quote:
for one, computers can't be "bad"
There are possibilities...
Quote:
I can't find an example with computers that has a 'miserable' consequence, that's why it's not necessarily a good analogy for this subject.
I can think of a few. Here's one example: he doesn't use the computer, so it becomes infested with diseased rats. He gets the disease and dies.
Quote:
You influence someone -- you violate his rights, because you took a part in his life (call it freedom, etc).
Wrong. When you give someone something that doesn't directly harm them (such as a disease), there is absolutely no way you could be violating their rights.
Quote:
You can't seriously tell me that I violated anyone's rights, since the virus is alive on it's own, not a property of "mine" (doesn't even 'listen' to me, it's beyond my control).
You can't blame Bohr for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't blame Kalashnikov for the war in Afghanistan.
Quote:
he can sue you for giving him life (after he is conceived he does it) if he finds it miserable (a virus life in which he starves)
No, he can't, not should he be able to.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 04:41 PM |
|
|
I will not attempt to use quote wars.
Quote:
Oh, and one last explanation: Before the fetus is conceived, it doesn't "want" or "feel" anything, since it doesn't exist, right? It doesn't have any rights. If I conceive ("create") the fetus dependant on me, I don't violate anyone's rights since before it doesn't HAVE ANY! Got it?
No, I don't get it, or perhaps I do, but I disagree completely. The rights are not only "at the moment". If you do something that will violate others' rights in the future, then you violate their rights. I'm not saying they can sue you BEFORE their rights were violated, but the fetus can do so AFTER he is conceived.
You violate his rights after he is conceived -- he DOES NOT want to be dependent on you and, thus, starve. It's like creating a clone and locking it up, or at least you 'tie' the clone to the ground genetically. You see, by your flawed logic you didn't violate its rights since it didn't "exist" when you made the genetical engineering. However, what do you have to say after he is conceived or born? He is tied to the floor, because of you. You, simply, violated his rights, made him dependent on you.
Although I do have to comment on the difference between 'exist' and 'live'. Biologically (something you never used to back your arguments), the fetus "exists" before, but split into different materials (sperm, egg, etc). As nothing can be "created", it has always existed. This of course does not mean that it is "alive". But by manipulating the materials he will grow from, you are automatically influencing him.
And for the last time -- life is not always a good thing. You keep saying that you give something to him, that is life. Disease can be 'given' too.
Quote:
Then, if I don't want to give it food, I don't violate its rights. Quite the opposite: if I was obligated to give it food, my rights would have been violated.
Please, I already understood this flawed situation -- if he was a beggar I would agree. If he is something because of you, it's why I don't.
Let me put this simply. Do you think that you can genetically engineer your own self, and make the fetus without limbs, and then claim that you did not violate his rights? He can sue you for that, because he has to compare himself -- to someone normal. If this 'disease' (no limbs) wasn't your fault then you are not obligated. However, you put him in this 'disease', so you genetically engineered him -- you have violated his rights.
So please before you start to ignore half of my post, at least quote the following if you will, and see where's the flaw:
If it wasn't for you, he wouldn't suffer. If you didn't exist, he wouldn't suffer. And I am NOT talking about emotional suffering. I am not talking about COMPETITION (the apple example you gave; competition for food). I am talking about a DIRECT INFLUENCE on him -- because you do a direct influence, not through some other objects (like an apple).
Plain and simple, you don't violate his rights before he exists, but YOU VIOLATE it thereafter, because he was born. Just like in the virus analogy. You make the virus, no one's rights are violated (they don't exist). After 10 years, they are harmed by the virus (the fetus is harmed when he is alive and dependent on you -- starves).
Thus, you violated their rights, or should I say, you violate their rights after 10 years (in the case of the fetus, you do so in 0.0000001 seconds, the moment after he is conceived). plain and simple.
Of course, if the virus is beneficial (you feed the fetus), even though you 'violated' their rights they may not sue you, because they want it. Thus, no matter what, giving life to a fetus and making him in your body "violates" his rights the moment he is conceived. But if is happy (wants to live but not starve) then he won't "sue" you.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 04:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I don't get it, or perhaps I do, but I disagree completely. The rights are not only "at the moment". If you do something that will violate others' rights in the future, then you violate their rights.
That's completely wrong from an objective point of view. You are just extremely subjective in this matter and think that your preferences are the way to go.
Quote:
Let me put this simply. Do you think that you can genetically engineer your own self, and make the fetus without limbs, and then claim that you did not violate his rights?
Exactly. I did not violate his rights. YOU ARE JUST THINKING SUBJECTIVE AND LIKE A "DO-GOODER"!
Quote:
If it wasn't for you, he wouldn't suffer. If you didn't exist, he wouldn't suffer.
As mvass said: You can't blame Kalashnikov for the war in Afghanistan. If it wasn't for Kalashnikov, many people wouldn't suffer, yet you CAN'T BLAME HIM!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 04:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If a fetus doesn't want life, why not take it from it? It would surely let you do it
Let me see if you want to be let to starve...
Besides, for the kid in question, you also had to make up for him in a way, not simply take it away -- he would still be offended/insulted. Thus, you need to take care of the fetus, to "make up" for him
Quote:
No, it's not. If you give someone a gun as a gift, are you responsible for everything they do with it? Does that mean that the parents of criminals are automatically liable for what their children do?
But the fetus can't use his "life" -- it's more like giving him a disease that makes him dependent on you.
Quote:
But at the point of conception (or, rather, the instant just before conception), he doesn't want anything because he doesn't exist. He doesn't want to be created, and he doesn't not want to be created. He doesn't want anything. Before conception, he has absolutely no will either way.
Ok, move to the time 0.00000000000001 after conception. He sues you for giving him life and letting him starve. That ok?
Quote:
Okay, time for another analogy! Let's say I get really rich, and have a lot of investments in the stock market. I have kids, I die, and they inherit my stocks. Then the stock market crashes, and they are impovershed. They lose a lot of money. Does that mean that I violated their rights when they got the stocks?
If the crash happened BECAUSE OF YOU, yes.
If you are in debt to someone and you die, yes you are 'violating' your followers' life when they have to pay the debt. Unfortunately you are already dead, they can't sue you for that
Quote:
Wrong. When you give someone something that doesn't directly harm them (such as a disease), there is absolutely no way you could be violating their rights.
So I take it that you favor those that spread the disease to others and don't deserve to be called a "crime" of some sort? (like AIDS for example, if they know it, and want to give it to you)
Quote:
You can't blame Bohr for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't blame Kalashnikov for the war in Afghanistan.
Because the government is in power, but otherwise, sure I could, they violate the non-aggression principle you worship.
You always have "special" cases that you use for society.
Quote:
No, he can't, not should he be able to.
Then you shouldn't be able to sue your mother if she knowingly did something to her body and made you a person without limbs? (supposedly she can pay the treatment and give you limbs)
If you feel comfortable with that and say that you can't sue her, then I guess you won't be able to type on the computer without limbs, you know?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 04:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Exactly. I did not violate his rights.
You did. Where's the right to be "equal", huh?
Let's say that someone engineers a new virus. He spreads it to the world, but will take effect only on new-borns. Suppose you are born. You can't hear because of the virus.
One day you find out who is responsible for the virus. Please answer the following question. What would you do? Sue him? He violated your rights -- just because it was a "delayed" weapon doesn't mean it isn't a weapon, you are thinking too narrow-minded and in your system there will be a LOT of holes to be exploited.
Seriously, would you not want to sue him? Is that convenient? See? You make a system in which you are fortunate, and say "screw the others". They should have the same rights and quality of life as you do.
Remember that ANY DISEASE makes one inferior. Where's the equality? The problem is that most diseases are natural and you can't sue anyone than nature (or God). However, if a person was responsible for it, he violated your rights.
Any direct influence (not through someone else, like the apple example) on you is a VIOLATION if you do NOT WANT IT.
Quote:
As mvass said: You can't blame Kalashnikov for the war in Afghanistan. If it wasn't for Kalashnikov, many people wouldn't suffer, yet you CAN'T BLAME HIM!
Wars break A LOT of rights. How are they justified? Through subjectiveness like you, not me.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 05:57 PM |
|
|
@Death: First of all, if a criminal hates/sues the cop arresting him, does that mean the cop violated the criminal's rights? I think not
Or, if Skeleton King hates TNT, does that mean TNT violated his rights?
Same with the fetus. It may hate me for creating it with a dependency on me, but I did NOT violate its rights, since before creation it didn't exist and didn't have ANY rights!
Hating someone and violating someone's rights are completely different things
Quote:
You did. Where's the right to be "equal", huh?
The last time: YOU DON'T HAVE RIGHTS UNTIL YOU ARE CREATED. And there are no such thing as "delayed" rights, get it?
Quote:
Let's say that someone engineers a new virus. He spreads it to the world, but will take effect only on new-borns. Suppose you are born. You can't hear because of the virus.
One day you find out who is responsible for the virus. Please answer the following question. What would you do? Sue him? He violated your rights -- just because it was a "delayed" weapon doesn't mean it isn't a weapon, you are thinking too narrow-minded and in your system there will be a LOT of holes to be exploited.
No, he didn't violate my rights. Must I repeat this to infinity? (Although I would hate him!)
Quote:
Wars break A LOT of rights.
Maybe, but YOU CAN'T BLAME THE GUY THAT CREATED THE WEAPONS! YOU CAN BLAME THE ONES THAT STARTED THE WAR! It doesn't matter if without the weapon-guy there wouldn't be a war. If you give someone a gun, you are not responsible for his actions (let's say he kills a lot of people)
*sigh*
This discussion is like this:
You give an example.
I say that it's a wrong example.
You give another one, that has exactly the same idea as the first one.
I repeat the same stuff.
...
...
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 06:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First of all, if a criminal hates/sues the cop arresting him, does that mean the cop violated the criminal's rights?
The criminal violated some law -- thus he can't sue the cop.
Quote:
Same with the fetus. It may hate me for creating it with a dependency on me, but I did NOT violate its rights, since before creation it didn't exist and didn't have ANY rights!
It is not just a simple hate, it's something you did to him.
Do you think that if someone knowingly 'gives' me a disease, the only thing I can do is to hate him? Not in my model, I can easily sue him.
Quote:
Hating someone and violating someone's rights are completely different things
And you violated the fetus' rights, because he does not want the 'disease' (the miserable life where he starves). See?
Quote:
The last time: YOU DON'T HAVE RIGHTS UNTIL YOU ARE CREATED. And there are no such thing as "delayed" rights, get it?
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
Seriously, read what I have said with the 'delayed'. And I'm not going to "Get it" just because you say so unless it's reasonable, but what you said (below) with the virus is completely ridiculous and open to many holes and flaws in the law, which are exploitable for "government experiments".
You basically mean that if I create a virus, and affects all new borns, that means I am a 100% non-violating person...
Quote:
No, he didn't violate my rights. Must I repeat this to infinity? (Although I would hate him!)
I beg to disagree completely. Yes he violated your rights. Because of him you have those things. Thus, he violated your rights.
Think of it like this. Your apple analogy is not because of someone else -- it's just that you both wanted the apple and he got there before you. You can't blame him, because the apple wasn't yours in the first place.
Now with the fetus it's different. The fetus is a direct consequence of his actions. Whatever the fetus 'receives' it does so because of the mother. Yes she is responsible, do you even know what that means?
If you impact someone's life directly, then you are responsible for everything your impact has done. That is the term, logical.
But of course you think subjectively that rights have special "bounds", special situations, and appear just like that.
If you continue with that flawed system you'll have the government take experiments with viruses like that on new borns and you call that ok? No violation.
Basically, if someone genetically puts a microcamera BEFORE YOU ARE BORN into you, and sees your actions (through the camera), does that mean HE IS NOT VIOLATING YOUR RIGHTS?
But seriously now, if you truly think that the one with the disease/virus has not violated your rights, then I can hardly discuss this anymore.
Your system is WAY to flawed to make any reasonable sense and open to A LOT of exploits. Please take that into account.
Quote:
Maybe, but YOU CAN'T BLAME THE GUY THAT CREATED THE WEAPONS! YOU CAN BLAME THE ONES THAT STARTED THE WAR! It doesn't matter if without the weapon-guy there wouldn't be a war. If you give someone a gun, you are not responsible for his actions (let's say he kills a lot of people)
What has this got to do with the fetus? This is the last time I am going to say this. There are two kinds of life, one is positive, one is negative.
1) You give someone life and feed him --> positive gift
2) You give someone a miserable life and let him starve --> negative gift
As far as I know, giving someone a gun is not a negative gift -- it's not that the fetus does something with its life that I am complaining. You are doing something to the fetus. Negative gifts, as far as I know, are a 'violation' of some sort.
The only reason you repeat yourself is because I try to use examples and different angled arguments (such as the 'disease', the negative gifts, etc.), you use the same arguments all over.
As for the war, it's not how you perceived it. The guy with the "virus" i mentioned directly impact your situation -- it's more like blaming the government. AND YES the government is to be blamed. If people in Hiroshima are born "strange" (because of radiation), the government has violated their rights. But of course it also has power, the reason it isn't "put to jail"
Quote:
*sigh*
This discussion is like this:
You give an example.
I say that it's a wrong example.
You give another one, that has exactly the same idea as the first one.
I repeat the same stuff.
...
...
I give examples, you bash them with something like:
"They're wrong! It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 06:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me see if you want to be let to starve...
I'd rather die than grow up in a family that didn't want me.
Quote:
Besides, for the kid in question, you also had to make up for him in a way, not simply take it away -- he would still be offended/insulted.
So let's say you make it up to the baby by getting him high (that'll make him happy) and then killing him while he's high. According to you, would that be okay? Since you "made it up to him", and then you took back what you gave to him...
Quote:
But the fetus can't use his "life"
Nor can a person without electricity use a computer. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for giving them electricty, however.
Quote:
He sues you for giving him life and letting him starve.
Lol, you can't sue someone for giving you something.
Quote:
If the crash happened BECAUSE OF YOU, yes.
Still no, because no one asked them to be dependent on the stocks.
Quote:
So I take it that you favor those that spread the disease to others and don't deserve to be called a "crime" of some sort?
No, you misunderstood what I wrote. What I meant was that a disease and other things that harm people are an exception, that is, you violate people's rights by purposely giving them diseases. Otherwise, giving doesn't violate people's rights.
Quote:
Because the government is in power, but otherwise, sure I could, they violate the non-aggression principle you worship.
I'm pretty sure that Bohr never bombed anyone, and that Kalashnikov never killed anyone with an AK-47. Therefore, they are not guilty of violating the non-aggression principle.
Quote:
Then you shouldn't be able to sue your mother if she knowingly did something to her body and made you a person without limbs?
No, I shouldn't. I don't have that right.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 02, 2008 06:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd rather die than grow up in a family that didn't want me.
That's maybe a good point but we still have to punish those that have conceived you by mistake.
Quote:
So let's say you make it up to the baby by getting him high (that'll make him happy) and then killing him while he's high. According to you, would that be okay? Since you "made it up to him", and then you took back what you gave to him...
You gave him just a finger puppet in this example. But you can't "make up for him" with something as simple as that for a thing such as life -- at best, you can go ahead and treat him 9 months.. maybe that'll be the start to make up for him.
Quote:
Lol, you can't sue someone for giving you something.
So if they give you AIDS knowingly, you can't sue them?
Quote:
Still no, because no one asked them to be dependent on the stocks.
I don't get it. If the crash happened because you were broke or something, then it's your fault -- if you have debts, they have to pay for it. 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.
Quote:
No, you misunderstood what I wrote. What I meant was that a disease and other things that harm people are an exception, that is, you violate people's rights by purposely giving them diseases. Otherwise, giving doesn't violate people's rights.
Obviously with subjective exceptions you'll always find something to contradict my arguments.
Life is an exception, just like disease. There, better?
Quote:
No, I shouldn't. I don't have that right.
Of course you don't, just like black people did not have.
I say that you need to have that right, not make "exceptions".
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
