|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 03, 2008 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing is, you are against economic freedom and the free market. Then why were you shocked when mvass told you this?
Just don't make assumptions
Quote:
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.
To be honest, I'm getting literally tired of explaining myself over and over when everyone seems to not read most of what I write, and then make assumptions as to how I am 
First of all, there is a very big difference between being allowed to buy a gun, and need some kind of permission. You don't need permission for apples, do you?
Besides, what I just said earlier was just a freaking example -- I suggest first of all to stop quoting some of my words and twist them to how you understand, especially from different threads, if you don't even have the patience to read what I write (in those threads too) and understand.
I am not against drugs, but it was a freaking example, as to this "so-perfect" system we have now, why it is flawed... I always use examples to support my arguments, I try to deal from different angles (cars, drugs, guns, you name them).. and most of what you people do (especially mvass) is to spit out a statement as if it is a fact or the Bible of some sort. I elaborate on my arguments, you and mvass only quote some phrases from that and twist them.
Seriously, do you even know how to have a civilized discussion? At a level where none is supposed to repeat himself/herself? I'm growing tired of posting with arguments, literally quite some paragraphs, just to see the next reply is some quotes where you twist my phrases and don't even understand (thusly) that it is an example, if you don't quote e.g: the "for example" part (and I thought it was also implicitly assumed).
Not to mention, there are a lot of examples I wrote previously that no one bothered to quote -- seems to me like I am talking to the void (e.g: the person implants, devices and that camera to name JUST A FEW).
Why do I even go on about it? What you said really surprised me as to how you can't comprehend what an example or assumption means -- you people take it too literally.
This thread is pointless not only because there is no consensus, but also because 70% of what I write is ignored -- long live the quote wars, huh?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 05:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
how can rats get in a computer?
By chewing a hole in it.
Quote:
Life, by itself, is not a good thing and neither a bad thing
If it is not an inhernetly harmful thing (like a disease is), then you shouldn't be punished for a gift.
Quote:
So if you are ambivalent, then why did you brought him to life?
Because it was an accident. The mother certainly didn't intend to.
Quote:
This action, bringing him to life, makes you not ambivalent at all.
I don't see why.
Quote:
You say that you need to have rights and etc... well, you should have thought about that before getting pregnant, k?
The fetus's rights are not being violated in any way.
Quote:
The only purpose you have in life is to starve.
Purpose?
Quote:
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).
When positive rights conflict with negative rights, the negative rights should always come out on top. The fetus doesn't have positive rights because positive rights shouldn't even exist.
Quote:
But it is a "negative" gift.
But the fact that it is negative has nothing to do with it being a gift. A disease can be a gift, yes, but it is more like a punch, kick, or shot than a gift.
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
Except for weapons, then I'd go even further: we shouldn't punish those who use them except when they infringe upon the rights of others.
Quote:
In fact, why ban guns?
Because the only purpose of a gun is to harm.
Quote:
Why make this exception for guns and not make exceptions for abortion/fetuses as well?
I'm not saying that we should make this exception for guns.
Quote:
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.
Wait, what? Why? If you choose to feed the baby, you're not violating your own rights, since you are giving it the food. Your rights are only violated when you are forced to feed it.
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
Which is why we have a gas tax, so people that use polluting fuels pay for it.
Quote:
But going by your logic, then the only system in which we're not authoritarians is complete anarchy.
Actually, strange as this may sound, many forms of anarchy are authoritarian, but the oppression doesn't come from the government but from the commune. The only kind of completely non-authoritarian system is a capitalist anarchy (since taxation is enforced through the threat of force), but it has its own problems, such as with crime, so I think that some sort of compromise would be best, forming a minarchist state. It still has to tax, but it's better able to enforce property rights.
Quote:
Seriously, do you even know how to have a civilized discussion? At a level where none is supposed to repeat himself/herself?
You're just mad because you're losing.
Quote:
This thread is pointless not only because there is no consensus
No, if there were a consensus, then this thread would be pointless, as then there'd be nothing to discuss.
Quote:
long live the quote wars, huh?
May they live long.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 06:09 PM |
|
|
@Death:
Whoa
I didn't know you were going to be so mad about this... just chill out, I didn't want to offend you or something
Quote:
Besides, what I just said earlier was just a freaking example -- I suggest first of all to stop quoting some of my words and twist them to how you understand, especially from different threads, if you don't even have the patience to read what I write (in those threads too) and understand.
I'm sorry but I really don't see your following quotes as an example only Maybe you should be more understandable:
TheDeath wrote: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?
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
Quote:
Not to mention, there are a lot of examples I wrote previously that no one bothered to quote -- seems to me like I am talking to the void (e.g: the person implants, devices and that camera to name JUST A FEW).
I didn't talk about those examples because they were pretty much messed up themselves. By making those examples, you "proved" to me that you didn't even understand my point, and thus it would have been completely pointless to discuss that. The fact is, it seems both you and me don't understand each other sometimes and I don't think it has any point to discuss then
Oh, and again: CHILL OUT
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 06:44 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:46, 03 Jul 2008.
|
Not quote wars again
@mvassilev:Quote:
If it is not an inhernetly harmful thing (like a disease is), then you shouldn't be punished for a gift.
How many times must I repeat myself, geesh am I talking chinese?
Life is "negative" IF you let him starve when he can't feed himself. It is worse than a disease.
Quote:
Because it was an accident. The mother certainly didn't intend to.
So if I make a car accident, I don't intend to hit someone else either. But you see, I should be forced to take care of him and pay his treatment and even a bit more (to "make up for him" as previously used).
Quote:
Quote:
You say that you need to have rights and etc... well, you should have thought about that before getting pregnant, k?
The fetus's rights are not being violated in any way.
I never said anything about the fetus.
It's like this: you don't want to pay the treatment for others --> you don't make accidents. Is that so hard to understand?
Quote:
But the fact that it is negative has nothing to do with it being a gift. A disease can be a gift, yes, but it is more like a punch, kick, or shot than a gift.
What's the freaking difference?
Quote:
Except for weapons, then I'd go even further: we shouldn't punish those who use them except when they infringe upon the rights of others.
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, why ban guns?
Because the only purpose of a gun is to harm.
So what's the purpose of abortion?
What's the purpose of letting someone starve? Someone you made, not anyone else -- you are directly responsible...
Quote:
Wait, what? Why? If you choose to feed the baby, you're not violating your own rights, since you are giving it the food. Your rights are only violated when you are forced to feed it.
And obviously that's what I was talking about.
You are forced to have a permission or you can't have a gun (even in YOUR property).
Similar to the fetus, which you conceived.
Quote:
Which is why we have a gas tax, so people that use polluting fuels pay for it.
I don't get any money out of it
The government? Who cares about the government?
Quote:
You're just mad because you're losing.
Perfect, not this is a competition, I'm glad you think that way, proves my point
@Asheera:
Quote:
Whoa
I didn't know you were going to be so mad about this... just chill out, I didn't want to offend you or something
Again you wrongly assume things about me. What, precisely, in my post was giving you the impression that I am mad.
No, I am more like bored. Completely bored over the same, same repeating text I have to type. Especially when people cut through my posts and quote only parts of it, usually ignoring the parts they can't comment on.
Quote:
I'm sorry but I really don't see your following quotes as an example only Maybe you should be more understandable:
Dangerous drugs, I said.
Guns, I was referring to banning guns "without permission" or whatever it's called. Yes that makes me somewhat an authoritarian. The democratic system is authoritarian because it makes people vote, adds taxes, etc...
But you will see, I make absolutely no exception with guns as with other objects. I simply use the "purpose" of the object -- if the purpose is to inflict on someone else's rights, then the object is banned (to be sold normally, without permission, etc), plain and simple.
Guns are also used for self-defense in your home (something which I agree with), that's why they are not banned, you need a permission.
Quote:
I didn't talk about those examples because they were pretty much messed up themselves. By making those examples, you "proved" to me that you didn't even understand my point, and thus it would have been completely pointless to discuss that. The fact is, it seems both you and me don't understand each other sometimes and I don't think it has any point to discuss then
Enlighten me for a moment, what was wrong with the following example (similar to the camera one):
If someone puts a device in you right now (you are living) and makes you feel pain every 5 seconds, it is a violation of your rights, no?
If someone puts that device BEFORE you are "alive" (whatever that means) (biological device), and again makes you feel pain every 5 seconds, it is NOT a violation of your rights. That's what you said.
The person who made this device and implanted it in (e.g: sperm) did it when you weren't alive, thus you had no rights, or am I wrong?
So basically, you're telling me that such a thing is ok and shouldn't be punished (later when you are alive and feel that pain)?
It is very similar to the virus example. I'm truly sorry if you think that way, there's nothing I can do to prove it's wrong, unless it happened to you, in which case I know you will agree with me.
Too bad for the innocent fetuses.
Quote:
Oh, and again: CHILL OUT
I don't need to chill out, I only need to stop posting in this thread if I have to repeat myself. I'm BORED, and tired of repeating the same things, not "hot"
Perhaps if you two wouldn't target me instead of the subject things would go more civilized. 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If someone puts a device in you right now (you are living) and makes you feel pain every 5 seconds, it is a violation of your rights, no?
If someone puts that device BEFORE you are "alive" (whatever that means) (biological device), and again makes you feel pain every 5 seconds, it is NOT a violation of your rights. That's what you said.
The person who made this device and implanted it in (e.g: sperm) did it when you weren't alive, thus you had no rights, or am I wrong?
So basically, you're telling me that such a thing is ok and shouldn't be punished (later when you are alive and feel that pain)?
If you replace "alive" with "exist", then yes he did not violate my rights, since I didn't exist -> I didn't have any rights, so what rights to violate if they don't exist?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you replace "alive" with "exist", then yes he did not violate my rights, since I didn't exist -> I didn't have any rights, so what rights to violate if they don't exist?
There is no such thing as "didn't exist" -- matter can't be created. You are confusing me with your terms. There is no such thing (materially, which 'exist' is based on) as "doesn't exist" -- the sperm fertilizes the egg, etc.. there is no "abrupt" existence happening anywhere.
For "alive" there is a whole different matter, which we already discussed that.
What I am asking you: is it ok to not be able to blame him because you suffer every 5 seconds? Rights are not just one single time in your life/existence. He didn't violate your rights when you didn't live (exist, sorry ), but he does so when you are born -- because you suffer every 5 seconds.
Now you told me I have no backup arguments to say why your system is flawed. Basically, this is one flaw. Who knows where such arrogant thinking will lead -- government experiments on people (clones actually)? Maybe they will bind them to their will, or maybe they will implant a chip (before they are conceived) and thus control their minds... even though they try to resist. Lots of movies have been made around this, and as I recall, it was illegal, or secret "government" experiments.
BUT if you do claim that he did not violate your rights (not only once, but EVERY 5 SECONDS you suffer, thus he violates your rights every time that happens!!!) then I can hardly have anything to discuss, apart from pointing out the flaws in your system.
I have done so many examples on flaws that I can hardly believe you or mvass can even dare to question again if I have any backup arguments when I say the statement that your system is flawed.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Life is "negative" IF you let him starve when he can't feed himself.
Since life is not inherently negative, you can't punish someone for giving someone else life. Just like you can't punish me for giving someone a computer or a finger puppet, even if they're insulted by it, because life, a computer, or a finger puppet are not inherently negative like a disease is, you shouldn't be punished for giving it.
Quote:
So if I make a car accident, I don't intend to hit someone else either. But you see, I should be forced to take care of him and pay his treatment and even a bit more (to "make up for him" as previously used).
Yes, but this is because you violated his rights. With a fetus, you aren't violating its rights when you're conceiving it, because at the moment just before conception, it doesn't exist, and at the moment after conception, its life is already its own (assuming that you take it as being alive before it's viable), so you can't point to a moment during conception at which its rights are being violated, even if life were a negative gift. Because before it has life it doesn't exist, and it starts existing as soon as it gets life. So you can't say that you gave it life against its will, because it only started existing and having a will after you gave it life.
Let me explain this to you simply. Stand up from your computer and turn around. Punch the air in front of you (if there's no one there). Sit back down. Now tell me, did you just violate anybody's rights? No, because there was nobody there, so you didn't hit anyone. There might be someone there in the future, but they're not there right now, so you're not violating their rights.
Quote:
It's like this: you don't want to pay the treatment for others --> you don't make accidents.
You forefit your rights whenever you violate someone else's rights. But when you are refusing to feed the fetus, you are not violating its rights.
Quote:
What's the freaking difference?
Between what?
Quote:
So what's the purpose of abortion?
To get the fetus out of the mother.
Quote:
What's the purpose of letting someone starve? Someone you made, not anyone else -- you are directly responsible...
The purpose of letting someone starve is that he won't get any of your food. You may not feel any malice towards the person who is starving - you simply don't want to give them your food. But you are not directly responsible for it starving, since that would imply that you are witholding something from it that you are obliged to give it. You are not obliged to give it anything.
Quote:
You are forced to have a permission or you can't have a gun
Yes, but an abortion doesn't violate anybody's rights, whereas a gun's main purpose is to violate somebody's rights.
Quote:
I don't get any money out of it
Yes, but this discourages people from using a lot of fuel, and that benefits you. Also, this makes them pay more to the government so you wouldn't have to pay as much.
Quote:
There is no such thing as "didn't exist" -- matter can't be created.
But life can. Take four sticks of equal length. Now put them together at right angles and forming a closed shape. You just formed a square! You didn't create any matter that didn't exist before, but you rearranged it to add something.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 07:43 PM |
|
|
@Death: I'll just comment on this:Quote:
There is no such thing as "didn't exist" -- matter can't be created.
Sheesh... then it would be better "didn't exist as a human being"? I thought that was understandable
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 07:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since life is not inherently negative, you can't punish someone for giving someone else life. Just like you can't punish me for giving someone a computer or a finger puppet, even if they're insulted by it, because life, a computer, or a finger puppet are not inherently negative like a disease is, you shouldn't be punished for giving it.
Yes life is inherently "negative" because of the purpose you gave. If you gave life by accident to abort, it is inherently negative.
It's more like this. Suppose that you give someone a disease that makes him grow 4 more arms. You, obviously by doing so, is a negative thing (depending on who you give it), and is thus a violation.
You give it to person A -- person A does not want and sues you. Perfectly fine.
You give it to person B -- person B likes it so does not sue you, even if he can.
Life is similar, but here we are not talking subjectively about "likes" and "not likes" or emotions such as "hate". For this reason, most normal well-fed children do not commit suicide, and thus don't sue you for giving them a miserable life, they consider it a "good" life.
However, what does a child that is left to starve say to you?
The latter applies here, and it is an inherently negative act.
Quote:
Yes, but this is because you violated his rights. With a fetus, you aren't violating its rights when you're conceiving it, because at the moment just before conception, it doesn't exist, and at the moment after conception, its life is already its own (assuming that you take it as being alive before it's viable), so you can't point to a moment during conception at which its rights are being violated, even if life were a negative gift. Because before it has life it doesn't exist, and it starts existing as soon as it gets life. So you can't say that you gave it life against its will, because it only started existing and having a will after you gave it life.
Giving him life does not constitute only a given time instant. It is a continuous process -- thus, you violate its rights EVERY MOMENT, every second. That is, until it can survive on its own, then you don't have any business to do with it (obviously).
Quote:
Let me explain this to you simply. Stand up from your computer and turn around. Punch the air in front of you (if there's no one there). Sit back down. Now tell me, did you just violate anybody's rights? No, because there was nobody there, so you didn't hit anyone. There might be someone there in the future, but they're not there right now, so you're not violating their rights.
What if I keep punching to infinity (life exists EVERY MOMENT, it's not an "instant" gift that only happens when you give it), so sometime someone will be there
Quote:
To get the fetus out of the mother.
And that's the purpose of guns -- to get the bastards that annoy you out of your way (you = offender)
why are guns for that purpose bad and abortion is good?
Quote:
The purpose of letting someone starve is that he won't get any of your food. You may not feel any malice towards the person who is starving - you simply don't want to give them your food. But you are not directly responsible for it starving, since that would imply that you are witholding something from it that you are obliged to give it. You are not obliged to give it anything.
Of course you are forcing it to starve -- IT CANNOT FEED ITSELF AND YOU KNOW THAT this is like the 10th time I repeat this.
Why can't it feed itself? Because YOU conceived it to be dependent on you.
Quote:
Yes, but this discourages people from using a lot of fuel, and that benefits you. Also, this makes them pay more to the government so you wouldn't have to pay as much.
How does that benefit me? The government does not benefit me
Quote:
But life can. Take four sticks of equal length. Now put them together at right angles and forming a closed shape. You just formed a square! You didn't create any matter that didn't exist before, but you rearranged it to add something.
Of course "alive" is completely different than "exist" and it's the more appropiate term.
Quote:
@Death: I'll just comment on this:Quote:
There is no such thing as "didn't exist" -- matter can't be created.
Sheesh... then it would be better "didn't exist as a human being"? I thought that was understandable
There is no such thing as that. Maybe you should've used the term "alive" instead, because human beings are alive thus there is no such thing as something to exist as a human being and not be alive
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 08:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because it was an accident. The mother certainly didn't intend to.
So if I make a car accident, I don't intend to hit someone else either. But you see, I should be forced to take care of him and pay his treatment and even a bit more (to "make up for him" as previously used).
Actually, following your logic: Whoever was the head of the accident, should take on all possible responsibilety for the accident. That include murder charges for it. You are comparing accident in pregnancy with completely careless pregnancy(not using any method to prevert it happen, equal to be driving with blindfold and noone to tell you what you are doing while driving a car).
Quote:
Quote:
You say that you need to have rights and etc... well, you should have thought about that before getting pregnant, k?
The fetus's rights are not being violated in any way.
I never said anything about the fetus.
Safe sex that failed = abortion, unless it was planned to have a baby a month later or someting close to that.
You did use a method to prevert it from happen no? Only a fool would do unsafe sex, simply because of the aftermatch.
And se above.
In my mind, i would ban pregnancy for somebody who did not use any methode to prevert the pregnancy from happening. If you where drunk/drugged down or someting similar where you could not be there and force yourself to be reasonable and THINK before someting happend, it would be needed to be allowed.
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, why ban guns?
Because the only purpose of a gun is to harm.
Epic win, and this is why i am agaist guns. It allows anybody to get their hands on it, for no particular reason.
It allows to free carry it around too, if you se somebody carring a blade type weapon on the street is should be allowed because guns are allowed too. Simply because the gun serve the EXACT same purpose as the blade type weapon.
The gun actually poses a bigger treat than the gun because it is designed to harm on a long range and is alot ligther.
As for banning nukes, a nuke got 2 purposes:
*Mass destruction
*Creating a large EMP
Both of these are not to be taken ligthly. And they are too harmfull because of this.
Quote:
So what's the purpose of abortion?
What's the purpose of letting someone starve? Someone you made, not anyone else -- you are directly responsible...
The purpose of abortion is to remove the fetus from the mothers womb.
The fact that the fetus does not survive(but it has to be defined to be "alive/living" to fall into this termology) it, is a completely different matter.
Quote:
Wait, what? Why? If you choose to feed the baby, you're not violating your own rights, since you are giving it the food. Your rights are only violated when you are forced to feed it.
And if that is the case, only medical reasons would case a abortion. It is that simple. And se above too.
Quote:
Guns are also used for self-defense in your home (something which I agree with), that's why they are not banned, you need a permission.
Guns are used for selfdefense by causing great and possibly fatal harm.
If somebody attacked me with a gun, i would ask this: "HOW THE HECK DID THE ATTACKER GET A GUN?" Once you got the permit you can get a gun anyhow you like it, and carrying it around.
If i was attacked by somebody with a dagger, i would not ask this. Simply because the purpse of a dagger is to be a tool, cutting meat/vegetables/etc. I would however resist and try to harm the attacker with all my effort til the attacker is knocked out/runs.
The same goes with somebody attacking my unarmed.
PS: Long life the quote wars!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, following your logic: Whoever was the head of the accident, should take on all possible responsibilety for the accident. That include murder charges for it. You are comparing accident in pregnancy with completely careless pregnancy(not using any method to prevert it happen, equal to be driving with blindfold and noone to tell you what you are doing while driving a car).
Sorry but if I were to do what you said, then I would charge the mother for murder, instead of giving her the chance to feed the child and take care of him (no charges thus!). It's similar to the accident, you know, you are forced to pay whatever damage/injuries you have done PLUS take the guy to the hospital OR call 911.. in short, take care of the victim, much like in the case of the fetus!
Quote:
Safe sex that failed = abortion, unless it was planned to have a baby a month later or someting close to that.
You did use a method to prevert it from happen no? Only a fool would do unsafe sex, simply because of the aftermatch.
And se above.
In my mind, i would ban pregnancy for somebody who did not use any methode to prevert the pregnancy from happening. If you where drunk/drugged down or someting similar where you could not be there and force yourself to be reasonable and THINK before someting happend, it would be needed to be allowed.
It's still an accident, and for accidents, you need to take care of the victim (fetus). In that way you will not be charged for anything. If you don't, sorry but you WILL be charged (that's in accidents and it should be in sex-accidents too)
Quote:
The purpose of abortion is to remove the fetus from the mothers womb.
The purpose of the gun is to remove the annoying bastards (fetus) that get in your way (because you made an accident and now they want revenge). See? Guns are similar to abortion
Quote:
Guns are used for selfdefense by causing great and possibly fatal harm.
Same does abortion for the fetus 
Quote:
If somebody attacked me with a gun, i would ask this: "HOW THE HECK DID THE ATTACKER GET A GUN?" Once you got the permit you can get a gun anyhow you like it, and carrying it around.
Seriously, if the attacker KNOWS he is going to break the law, he can steal a gun
Quote:
PS: Long life the quote wars!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 03, 2008 11:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes life is inherently "negative" because of the purpose you gave.
Purpose doesn't matter. Let's take murder for example. Murder is murder even if it's to cure cancer.
Quote:
Giving him life does not constitute only a given time instant. It is a continuous process
Ah, but it is a given instant. Say you give someone a computer. They have that computer continuously, but there is only one moment at which they received it.
Quote:
And that's the purpose of guns -- to get the bastards that annoy you out of your way
Yes, but in doing so, you are actively killing or maiming them, thus violating their rights (unless it's in self-defense).
Quote:
Of course you are forcing it to starve
No. The only way you could force it to starve is to actually actively prevent it from getting food. You are not forcing it to starve simply by not giving it food. That is, you wouldn't mind if someone else chose to give it food.
Quote:
How does that benefit me? The government does not benefit me
Oh, so you wouldn't mind being murdered or having your property taken. Okay.
Quote:
It's still an accident, and for accidents, you need to take care of the victim
I agree, but tell me this: exactly at what point are the fetus's rights violated?
Quote:
The purpose of the gun is to remove the annoying bastards (fetus)
If you use a gun (or the threat of one) to remove someone from your property, that's one thing. But a gun has uses far beyond that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no such thing as that. Maybe you should've used the term "alive" instead, because human beings are alive thus there is no such thing as something to exist as a human being and not be alive
Interesting, so a dead human doesn't exist as a human being? Or maybe you're saying that a dead human is alive - which is kind of a contradiction, no?
Oh, and even a dead human has "rights": I mean, you have to respect his/her last wish (bury, incinerate, etc), you can't just do anything you want with the body!
This is a perfect example of a human being that exists and has some kind of rights and is NOT alive
Oh, and:Quote:
Giving him life does not constitute only a given time instant. It is a continuous process
So you're saying that, for example, if I cut someone's finger, he can sue me for the rest of my life (and not only for this moment I cut his finger)? Come on, get real!
You know where YOUR system leads:
Example 1: "hey, I gave you that gift last year, you have to pay for it right now again!"
Example 2: "hey, you bastard, do you think I don't remember the day you broke my window? Give me some compensation (even though you already did this for him last year) or I'll sue you!"
My system was flawed, huh?
And the fetus has no right to force the mother to give it food. And since the "dependency" is made before the fetus exists (and receives rights) then the mother is not in debt with the fetus at all.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:17 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:Quote:
Purpose doesn't matter. Let's take murder for example. Murder is murder even if it's to cure cancer.
But of course you use the "purpose" argument with guns... nice backup there
Quote:
Ah, but it is a given instant. Say you give someone a computer. They have that computer continuously, but there is only one moment at which they received it.
But if the computer tortures them every 5 seconds, you are literally violating their rights every 5 seconds
By the way, again, I am not talking about subjective emotions (such as 'hate') but about objective ones (death, physical torture, etc).
Quote:
No. The only way you could force it to starve is to actually actively prevent it from getting food. You are not forcing it to starve simply by not giving it food. That is, you wouldn't mind if someone else chose to give it food.
You have repeated yourself with exactly the same thing I replied to. You are forcing it because he is dependent on YOU because of YOU (that is, you 'created' him, thus YOU are the reason he is DEPENDENT on YOU).
It is like this. You can take and clone an animal. Now, where do you "put" the clone?
1) In the wild, where it can feed itself.
2) Locked somewhere in a basement (YOUR body, YOU dragged in the sperm, etc).
For 2, it cannot survive on it's own, because of you, thus you are forcing it to starve. This is by far the worst flaw in your system.
Quote:
Oh, so you wouldn't mind being murdered or having your property taken. Okay.
You know what I meant
Quote:
I agree, but tell me this: exactly at what point are the fetus's rights violated?
When it is locked in YOUR basement (body) and it CANNOT feed itself even if it would WANT.
There is a big difference between not wanting and cannot do something.
Quote:
If you use a gun (or the threat of one) to remove someone from your property, that's one thing. But a gun has uses far beyond that.
Again, you use the "purpose" argument which you bashed when I talked about life... there's no point in discussing when you use it only for your arguments and ignore it in my arguments
@Asheera:Quote:
Interesting, so a dead human doesn't exist as a human being? Or maybe you're saying that a dead human is alive - which is kind of a contradiction, no?
Basically you're telling me a dead human has more rights than a fetus?
What's the difference between a dead human and some sperm/eggs?? Both aren't "alive". If you consider a dead human a "human" (it even decomposes!!), then consider sperm too, both have DNA
So the fetus "exists" as a human before conception, but is not "alive", see?
Quote:
So you're saying that, for example, if I cut someone's finger, he can sue me for the rest of my life (and not only for this moment I cut his finger)? Come on, get real!
You misunderstood me completely and I think I have to explain myself 10 times before you can understand.
Let's take the simple and beloved "eye-for-an-eye" approach (don't make a mistake -- I do no agree with it at all!), and see how it works with my example.
You cut someone's finger, yes he CAN sue you for the rest of his life unless, for example, he cuts your finger too -- then you are both 'equal'.
Now without the eye-for-an-eye approach, look at it like this. You go to jail or give him money, etc.. Whatever, doesn't matter. The point is, he can't sue you any longer because the "money" affected his life (and does so in the future, if e.g: he got rich). But of course this is an over-simplification. That means, if he is going to lose his money, it wouldn't be your fault at all -- you've paid your debt to him.
Quote:
Example 1: "hey, I gave you that gift last year, you have to pay for it right now again!"
So basically, if I pay for a gift and make him Bill Gates, that doesn't mean I changed his WHOLE life? You see, you have paid your debts -- changed his life with your money. Do you think anything is simple without having a total chain reaction in the future? EVERYTHING happens with a chain reaction. Even teleporting 5000 years and moving a rock affects everything else. Thus, it is a "continuous" gift as well.
But of course again it's an over-simplification. If he loses his money it's not your problem, at least you gave him an equal chance and paid your debts. Just because he was stupid doesn't mean you are in debt.
Quote:
Example 2: "hey, you bastard, do you think I don't remember the day you broke my window? Give me some compensation (even though you already did this for him last year) or I'll sue you!"
Again same mistake. I wonder if you really take the time to think about a system as mine before commenting on it?
If you gave him compensation, that changed his life (unless he was stupid). The idea is not that it changes his life, but it gives him an equal opportunity. It is very important to distinguish -- thus if he is stupid but had the chance, it's not your fault. You paid your debts to him.
Quote:
And the fetus has no right to force the mother to give it food.
I've heard this statement like 10 times before
Rather, it's the mother that is forced to give food to the fetus, just like in case of an accident
Quote:
And since the "dependency" is made before the fetus exists (and receives rights) then the mother is not in debt with the fetus at all.
What the mother does is affecting the whole life of the fetus, thus it needs an equal compensation (an equal opportunity). What opportunity does the fetus have? None at all, he is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother. See, my system works well, but don't misinterpret it cause it adds a bad image to it
And yes, the sperm/egg exists and is "human" (not "alive", but it IS human), so thus exists before conception, but is not "alive".
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now without the eye-for-an-eye approach, look at it like this. You go to jail or give him money, etc.. Whatever, doesn't matter. The point is, he can't sue you any longer because the "money" affected his life (and does so in the future, if e.g: he got rich).
You contradict yourself, because you said I have to give him an equal opportunity, and no matter how much money I give to him he will NOT get his finger back
Quote:
And yes, the sperm/egg exists and is "human" (not "alive", but it IS human),
Sperm is human... this really is interesting
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:34 PM |
|
|
Depends on your definition of human.
If every cell in the human body, by itself, is human, then yes. But then you should be against shaving etc
and the fact that people are against Stem Cell research kinda annoys me.
It's an inevitable path for human genetic advancement and promises a bounty of amazing technology.
If we don't blow ourselves up before then, it's possible (through genetics) that humans can prevent death, just like any other disease.
But people are afraid of genetics and like to slow down it's progress.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:35 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:38, 04 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
You contradict yourself, because you said I have to give him an equal opportunity, and no matter how much money I give to him he will NOT get his finger back
No, but you will influence his life in perhaps more positive ways than the finger could (that is, if he e.g: becomes Bill Gates because of you, and otherwise he would be a beggar, I think that would be a more positive influence).
What you are saying doesn't work in reality and my system doesn't work that way either. For example, if a criminal murders someone, you can't give life to that someone no matter what you do to the criminal. Some things can't be pure "justice" you know.
At best, what you can do is to use eye-for-an-eye, that is kill the criminal (or cut your finger).. but even then, he may not want it, thus the law has to also put you to jail or something.
Of course the law can never give something completely back "intact" because, for example, you can't give his finger back nor a life back.
Yes the world is not fair. Do you think my system is idealistic? Face it.
Quote:
Sperm is human... this really is interesting
Biologically it is very similar to a dead person -- in fact, a dead person even starts to decompose, that means it loses "connection" between cells as normally would be. It has human DNA.
But of course you have different definitions of being human. Since you can even have definitions of "not alive" humans, then your definitions are purely opinions that perhaps people agree on.
I didn't say sperm is "alive", that's why the safest bet is to use the definition of human when it is "alive".
If you want dead people to be "human", then sperm should be too
@TA:Quote:
Depends on your definition of human.
If every cell in the human body, by itself, is human, then yes. But then you should be against haircuts, shaving etc
and the fact that people are against Stem Cell research kinda annoys me.
It's an inevitable path for human genetic advancement and promises a bounty of amazing technology.
If we don't blow ourselves up before then, it's possible (through genetics) that humans can prevent death, just like any other disease.
But people are afraid of genetics and like to slow down it's progress.
I always like to see people like you commenting on research that involves someone else. Why not volunteer to be a rat-lab yourself? (I'm talking if that means you should kill fetuses for that purpose obviously!)
It kinda annoys me when other people tell what others should do when they wouldn't want to do that on themselves
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:40 PM |
|
|
How could I be a rat lab for stem cell research?
I could participate in it, sure, but I couldn't be a test subject. I'm not a woman, stem cell or fetus.
As for participation, I'm not sure they need an unqualified teenager in their labs just yet
But I wouldn't be against it.
Besides, stem cell reasearch =/= murdering fetuses lol.
That's like in South Park where they call eating fetuses "stem cell research" lol.
But I think the use of stem cells in order to prevent the deaths of countless humans is worth it.
It will happen eventually.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:49 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:50, 04 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
I could participate in it, sure, but I couldn't be a test subject. I'm not a woman, stem cell or fetus.
I was talking hypothetically, because we humans have a tendency to use others. For example, what if you were a fetus and someone does stem-cell research on you? Of course, now it's easy to say "go with it" since you are not involved.
Quote:
Besides, stem cell reasearch =/= murdering fetuses lol.
Of course, it's why I said, that doing it for that sole purpose is bad.
Quote:
But I think the use of stem cells in order to prevent the deaths of countless humans is worth it.
As long as you are not the one of the fetuses that sacrifice, yes?
I tell you what, you volunteer to become a fetus, and we all else (including me ) live longer.. Sounds about right?
(of course this is ONLY an example, you are not a fetus, that's why I said it's easy to say right now "hey, go on with it" when you are not involved, on the contrary you might benefit for the, perhaps against their will, sacrifice of someone else).
It's really like allowing some scientists to pick people on the street for experiments when the "greater population" (aka the society) will benefit. You know what I'll tell them? Pick yourself!
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It kinda annoys me when other people tell what others should do when they wouldn't want to do that on themselves
People that don't think "The end justifies the means" (e.g. kill 1 person for saving 1000, or even better, kill 1 person for saving 100 when that single person would also die along with those 100) kinda annoy me
Even in the Bible God makes sacrifices: remember Sodom and Gomorrah?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
