|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 06, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But by affecting the fetus, it affects the state of the mother. If she wasn't pregnant, it wouldn't affect her. But if she is, it does.
No because the radioactive stuff does NOT affect fetuses in this example, it only affects babies after they are born and until they have age 1 
Quote:
Yes, because the radiation you released has only one purpose: to physically damage (and that is a violation of rights). It is not the radiation itself, though, that is the problem here, but its effects.
And the effects apply only to people that are born tomorrow -- thus when you 'unleashed' it, it did not affect anyone.
By your flawed logic, the people could not be able to sue you, right?
My logic does not allow this, because you violate their rights every moment after they receive the radiation -- it's not just a "one-shot" violation (i.e only applied one moment in time, when you release the radiation), but it's a "continuous" process, until it is 'solved' (that is, after they sue you and win that).
Quote:
But it can't, so we have abortions.
Nonono I meant, when you give life to it, it automatically gets 'disturbed' even if you kill it the very next moment.
Quote:
How quickly you change the subject! I was talking about how laws are different in different countries, and you said that you'd still get blamed even if taking wild eggs wasn't illegal, and I asked you what good blame is if no punishment is attached to it.
Are you saying that if the law did not stop criminals it would be ok to not blame them for killing? 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 08:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And the effects apply only to people that are born tomorrow -- thus when you 'unleashed' it, it did not affect anyone.
By your flawed logic, the people could not be able to sue you, right?
No, they would, because you are affecting them the moment the radiation affects them. You should not be punished for "unleashing" the radiation, per se, but for the damaging effects it has on the babies.
Quote:
when you give life to it, it automatically gets 'disturbed'
How can you disturb something that isn't living? I mean, when it's first conceived, it's in its default state.
Quote:
Are you saying that if the law did not stop criminals it would be ok to not blame them for killing?
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that that blame wouldn't do much good if no punishment came along with it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, they would, because you are affecting them the moment the radiation affects them. You should not be punished for "unleashing" the radiation, per se, but for the damaging effects it has on the babies.
Exactly.
In the fetus' case, you should not be punished for giving the fetus life (unleashing the radiation), but for what that life and being there does to them (makes them suffer/starve).
Quote:
How can you disturb something that isn't living? I mean, when it's first conceived, it's in its default state.
Doesn't matter, you'll never agree with this anyway
Quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that that blame wouldn't do much good if no punishment came along with it.
Because the punishment only 'appears' when people want it. That is, first we have to start the blaming, and then the punishment will slowly get started in the law. That is, laws don't appear like that, at a blink of an eye!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 08:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the fetus' case, you should not be punished for giving the fetus life (unleashing the radiation), but for what that life and being there does to them (makes them suffer/starve).
But it's not life that makes them starve, but the lack of food.
Quote:
Because the punishment only 'appears' when people want it. That is, first we have to start the blaming, and then the punishment will slowly get started in the law.
That's true. But there are many things today which are considered "wrong", but are not illegal or likely to become so.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it's not life that makes them starve, but the lack of food.
Without life, there can be no 'lack of food' 
Quote:
That's true. But there are many things today which are considered "wrong", but are not illegal or likely to become so.
And I thought that's why we had this discussion
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Without life, there can be no 'lack of food'
But a lack of food is not an inherent part of life.
Quote:
And I thought that's why we had this discussion
There are some things that should be disapproved of but should still be legal.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:14 PM |
|
|
Food is a part of life. Food (I mean, starving) requires life. Thus, if life wouldn't exist, so would 'lack of food'.
For me it seems pretty common sense to blame someone who did something to someone else (let's go back to the egg analogy). I mean, if that person wouldn't get the egg, it wouldn't starve. Thus, for me it's ok to blame that person since it's the direct reason (again, it's not competition, that is 'indirect' reason) that the creature starves.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 11:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Food is a part of life.
You keep going from life in the specific to life in the general and back. I was talking about life as in being alive. You're talking about life as a whole. (Can't really describe it better than that right now.)
Quote:
I mean, if that person wouldn't get the egg, it wouldn't starve
And if I gave all of my money to beggars, less of them would starve. That doesn't mean that they deserve my money.
Quote:
Thus, for me it's ok to blame that person since it's the direct reason (again, it's not competition, that is 'indirect' reason) that the creature starves.
The creature starves because it doesn't get any food. If it's prevented from getting fed, it's one thing. But if the person refuses to feed it, that's fine, since its rights were never violated.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 01:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And if I gave all of my money to beggars, less of them would starve. That doesn't mean that they deserve my money.
Unless you are the one who brought them in that situation.
Quote:
The creature starves because it doesn't get any food. If it's prevented from getting fed, it's one thing. But if the person refuses to feed it, that's fine, since its rights were never violated.
Don't you get it? You are preventing it from being fed, because you are the one who "brought" it into the situation. Thus, it's like taking an egg and putting it near a volcano. Does that mean that you are not responsible for the creature being there? Of course you are.
Maybe the law does not call this yet a 'violation' of rights, but in my opinion, it's a direct influence on its life and you know it. The problem is that you are the one who directly influenced its life -- and you are the reason it's there.
Thus I see no problem in 'losing' your freedom. If you don't want to lose it, then don't conceive it. It's a very simple rule
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 02:42 PM |
|
|
You said that you are not to be blamed for those two nuclear bombs that the terrorist stole, because you created them not for killing, but for another purpose. It was an accident, right?
It's the same with the fetus being conceived against your will! It was an accident, you didn't have sex for that purpose, but for another (don't tell me "fun" is no purpose). So, you are not to be blamed for the fact that the fetus dies without you feeding it, just like you are not to be blamed for the two cities that explode without you disarming the bombs.
It's exactly the same thing:
- you create the bombs for a purpose (not for killing) > you have sex for a purpose (not for having a baby)
- an accident happens in both situations
- the terrorists destroy the two towns, if you do not want to disarm the bombs. Even if you don't disarm them, you said you can't be blamed, right? So, now for abortion: the fetus dies of starvation if you do not want to feed it. Even if you don't feed it, from the above example which YOU support, you can't be blamed for the fetus' "death".
And your egg analogy is pretty messed up because you WANT to take the egg, in the case of abortion, you do NOT want a baby!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 02:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You said that you are not to be blamed for those two nuclear bombs that the terrorist stole, because you created them not for killing, but for another purpose. It was an accident, right?
'Accident' no way, because terrorists have their own will
Quote:
It's the same with the fetus being conceived against your will! It was an accident, you didn't have sex for that purpose, but for another (don't tell me "fun" is no purpose). So, you are not to be blamed for the fact that the fetus dies without you feeding it, just like you are not to be blamed for the two cities that explode without you disarming the bombs.
There is a difference between an accident made out of your own will, and only yours, and an accident (if you can even call it that way) made my someone else (terrorists).
Oh, and there's a difference between 'duty' and 'fun', common sense speaks.
(since I presume the nukes are 'duty' obviously they are not "personal" objects, thus someone (e.g the army) made you do it for a reason)
Quote:
And your egg analogy is pretty messed up because you WANT to take the egg, in the case of abortion, you do NOT want a baby!
Yes you want to take the egg, but you don't want the creature in it, it's similar -- you trash the poor innocent creature because you wanted to have 'fun' (that is, steal the egg and put it in your home). You did that for the egg, not for the creature, in my analogy.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 03:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is a difference between an accident made out of your own will, and only yours, and an accident (if you can even call it that way) made my someone else (terrorists).
Hey, you knew the risks when you built up the bombs. I mean, don't you think a nuclear bomb is tempting to steal?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 03:15 PM |
|
|
|
Yeah but you built it for some 'duty' purpose (whoever assigned that task to you). I don't think stealing is an accident either
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Unless you are the one who brought them in that situation
Bringing someone into a certain situation can be constructed very broadly.
Quote:
You are preventing it from being fed, because you are the one who "brought" it into the situation.
Does it seem like deja vu here?  If you were preventing it from being fed, then you would prevent it from being fed, which is not the case. You may not be feeding it, but you are not preventing it from being fed. There's a difference. If you were preventing it from being fed, you would make it either so it couldn't receive nutrients in any way, or you would prevent anyone from feeding it. This is not the case here. You are not feeding it, but you have absolutely nothing against other people feeding it. There's the crucial difference.
Quote:
it's a direct influence on its life and you know it
The guy who invented gunpowder had a big innfluence on a lot of people's lives too. Does that mean that he should've been punished for inventing gunpowder?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 05:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does it seem like deja vu here? If you were preventing it from being fed, then you would prevent it from being fed, which is not the case. You may not be feeding it, but you are not preventing it from being fed. There's a difference. If you were preventing it from being fed, you would make it either so it couldn't receive nutrients in any way, or you would prevent anyone from feeding it. This is not the case here. You are not feeding it, but you have absolutely nothing against other people feeding it. There's the crucial difference.
If you take a tropical egg, and put it in the arctic, does that mean that you are not preventing it from being fed? Or are you telling me that you can't be punished for that (let's say the egg is a human egg ).
Why should others take care of the fetus that you conceived? You can't just create life and then screw it, it goes against most moral principles. Not only that but it also requires a whole different level, since in this way one can abuse the system and intentionally make babies to let them starve (let's say it pleases him to see that). Note, I said babies, because you imply that you have full freedom after you give someone life.
It is, again, a simple rule. You want to be free? Then don't conceive life. Life requires certain responsibilities and obligations.
Quote:
Quote:
it's a direct influence on its life and you know it
The guy who invented gunpowder had a big innfluence on a lot of people's lives too. Does that mean that he should've been punished for inventing gunpowder?
Please read the bolded part carefully
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 05:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you take a tropical egg, and put it in the arctic, does that mean that you are not preventing it from being fed?
Technically, no, you aren't.
Quote:
Or are you telling me that you can't be punished for that (let's say the egg is a human egg ).
That depends in the circumstances.
Quote:
Why should others take care of the fetus that you conceived?
They don't have to, but if they want to, I'm not going to stop them. What I'm trying to say is that I don't have to care for it.
Quote:
You can't just create life and then screw it, it goes against most moral principles.
Unless you are actually causing it harm...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Technically, no, you aren't.
We can't truly consider everything technically. The law system is not based on technicalities, otherwise we would be having a computer for a judge or jury
Quote:
They don't have to, but if they want to, I'm not going to stop them. What I'm trying to say is that I don't have to care for it.
You should've thought about that before conceiving it
Quote:
Unless you are actually causing it harm...
But you are since you put it there or brought it into that situation
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 06:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The law system is not based on technicalities
You can only be punished for violating somebody's rights. That's not a technicality. So you're not really violating the egg's rights for two reasons: it is an animal, and doesn't have human rights, and you are not actually hurting it while it is alive, so...
Quote:
You should've thought about that before conceiving it
But you have no obligation to care for it.
Quote:
But you are since you put it there or brought it into that situation
But you are not actually harming it, are you? Therefore you should not be punished.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 06:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can only be punished for violating somebody's rights. That's not a technicality. So you're not really violating the egg's rights for two reasons: it is an animal, and doesn't have human rights, and you are not actually hurting it while it is alive, so...
Quote:
Quote:
You should've thought about that before conceiving it
But you have no obligation to care for it.
Because the system is flawed.
The best system is one in which you are obligated to take care of whatever responsibility you need to embrace because of what you have caused.
Quote:
But you are not actually harming it, are you? Therefore you should not be punished.
That's because you only look at 'harm' in a primitive direct-physical way (like e.g: a punch), not in more complex situations (including the radioactive/virus example previously).
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You should've thought about that before conceiving it
But you have no obligation to care for it.
Because the system is flawed.
The best system is one in which you are obligated to take care of whatever responsibility you need to embrace because of what you have caused.
Lets say a boss fires one of his incompetent workers, then the boss is forced to take care of that worker becase the boss fired somebody who needed the pay.
And this is after a certain logic quoted above
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
