|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 10, 2008 04:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well we already discussed the things with "rights" even in the Moral Philosophy thread, and I told you they are based on the law, which is relative (thus subjective).
And I told you that the law merely protects rights, while morals create them.
Quote:
Rights are not violated at a single instant in time.
On the contrary, if you run somebody over, you violate their rights when you run them over. One moment that's easy to pinpoint.
Quote:
When he lives obviously!
Does that mean that I'm currently having my rights violated? I beg to differ.
Quote:
I mean, if I take sperm, and an egg, and artificially fertilize it, then whoever gets out of there is put there by me
No, once it fertilizes, as you have said earlier, it develops by itself. So you certainly put those materials there, but you don't actually put the fetus there, it just forms there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
On the contrary, if you run somebody over, you violate their rights when you run them over. One moment that's easy to pinpoint.
You do know that by relativity, there is no time instant, only an illusion, right? 
Quote:
Does that mean that I'm currently having my rights violated? I beg to differ.
1) Why would that be? How are you violated? (obviously you can also feed and survive yourself thus it isn't so)
2) Government and corporations in power can violate our rights -- it's just the strong vs the weak. You can't do anything about it there.
Quote:
No, once it fertilizes, as you have said earlier, it develops by itself. So you certainly put those materials there, but you don't actually put the fetus there, it just forms there.
That's like saying: I put some materials and make a gun... I put some more materials and make a bullet. Then I only move the so-called trigger (materials made by me) a bit, and the bullet flies by itself!! I am not responsible for someone getting hit by the bullet, since the bullet flied by itself (obviously, after I hit the trigger).
The fetus is similar but the time is a lot longer (that is, instead of a few miliseconds as in the bullet's case, it takes 9 months).. but then, they are the same
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 05:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You do know that by relativity, there is no time instant, only an illusion, right?
You know what I meant.
Quote:
1) Why would that be? How are you violated?
I'm alive, aren't I? Doesn't that mean that my rights are being violated every instant?
Quote:
2) Government and corporations in power can violate our rights
Wait, wait. I thought that the government makes laws, and laws create our rights. So how can the government violate our rights if it's what gives us our rights in the first place? 
Quote:
I am not responsible for someone getting hit by the bullet, since the bullet flied by itself
So are you saying that if your progeny commits a crime (as an adult), you are responsible for it? Since you created it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm alive, aren't I? Doesn't that mean that my rights are being violated every instant?
1) You can commit suicide if you don't want to be alive (which I doubt) -- and do it painless (besides, until now you've enjoyed your life)
2) You can do whatever you want by yourself, not dependent on anyone
Quote:
Wait, wait. I thought that the government makes laws, and laws create our rights. So how can the government violate our rights if it's what gives us our rights in the first place?
I meant "unofficial" stuff 
Quote:
So are you saying that if your progeny commits a crime (as an adult), you are responsible for it? Since you created it.
You do realize I was sarcastic with the bullet example, right?
In the case of an adult, no you are not (since that's what an adult 'acquires'), but in the case of a child, I think you are (teenagers I'm not so sure).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 06:24 PM |
|
|
Being dependant =/= having your rights violated anyway
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 06:33 PM |
|
|
|
Obviously it depends on the situation (like I said so many times) -- since a kid that is healthy and fed (until he can do himself) hardly has any rights violated.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 06:39 PM |
|
|
It is not "obviously" because it is subjective (I mean your opinion)
And again, violating rights = action. Only actions can violate rights, NOT the reason. Since you don't consider a fetus in a normal situation with its rights violated, then a fetus who is left to starve doesn't have the rights violated as well (since it's the same "conceiving" action). The reason doesn't matter (that you don't want the fetus), it is not a violation of anyone's rights. As I said, you can't consider a man that thinks all the time at stealing (but doesn't steal) a thief, and he doesn't violate anyone's rights.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 06:47 PM |
|
|
Why do you keep on that example with the thief that only thinks about stealing and neglect the virus/radioactive example? What you said above is also subjective -- and I have pointed out flaws. My system is only fair to everyone, and in our case, even the fetus/victim. If we had a mind-reader, I think we should prevent crimes based on what a criminal thinks. The "action" system is so flawed I have given too many examples already (including the "government" experiments). You may not like to treat absolutely anyone fairly (even in the case of the fetus, since it's your fault its there, thus you can't just pretend it didn't happen!), but white people did not like to lose their slaves either in the past!
Oh and btw, the reason matters -- or are you telling me that accidents should be treated the same as murder? The system with the action is so primitive and basic and can be abused so easily (I'm not making a statement, I already gave too many examples, I won't repeat myself).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) You can commit suicide if you don't want to be alive (which I doubt) -- and do it painless (besides, until now you've enjoyed your life)
But I've never asked to be alive. Doesn't that mean that my rights were violated?
Quote:
Why do you keep on that example with the thief that only thinks about stealing and neglect the virus/radioactive example?
You can't blame a man who thinks about releasing radioactive waste unless he actually releases radioactive waste. And the childrens' rights are violated when they are infected, but even if they suffer afterwards, you can only say that their rights were violated at one point, not at every point they suffer.
Quote:
are you telling me that accidents should be treated the same as murder?
No, but here you're punishing two things. If it's an accident, you're merely punishing people so that they'd be more careful. If it was an intentional murder, though, you're punishing so they would be deterred from acting on those thoughts. But if I'm killed, I don't care if it's an accident or murder, now do I?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 07:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh and btw, the reason matters -- or are you telling me that accidents should be treated the same as murder?
You are saying that litteraly already. You say that a mother who will gets her dreams shattered due pregnancy cannot have a abortion.
This means a accident here is forcing person 1 to take on the full problems in all aspects, if the accident was killing somebody then its a murder charge.
Simple logic.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 07:37 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:37, 10 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
You are saying that litteraly already. You say that a mother who will gets her dreams shattered due pregnancy cannot have a abortion.
Because she should think of the fetus too, and after all, it was HER fault.
Abortion = blaming your accident on the innocent fetus
Quote:
This means a accident here is forcing person 1 to take on the full problems in all aspects, if the accident was killing somebody then its a murder charge.
Let's say she wanted to have "fun" and decided to make some experiment in the chemistry class. Now she blew up the school. She has 2 choices:
1) Blame that on an innocent teacher (let's suppose SHE CAN do it, and no one observed that). Thus, she (aka the responsible) gets away, and someone innocent (the teacher in this case) suffers the penalty
2) Lose the education for herself, but the teacher is left alone.
I think it's pretty fair to consider number (2), I have no sympathy to those that blame their faults on someone innocent to keep their normal status, and it was their accident, thus their responsibility.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) Blame that on an innocent teacher (let's suppose SHE CAN do it, and no one observed that). Thus, she (aka the responsible) gets away, and someone innocent (the teacher in this case) suffers the penalty
WHERE THE HECK DID YOU GET THE IDEA?! This cannot in any case be compared with abortion.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 07:41 PM |
|
|
Why not? As I see it, the mother doesn't want to lose her education/job, so she shouldn't have sex. Why should the innocent fetus be caught in the middle and suffer? Because of her btw.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 08:22 PM |
|
|
Because the fetus is violating her rights by being there against her will.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 08:25 PM |
|
|
It's with her will, since she made the accident, and it's her responsibility thus. You can't put your hand in fire and then claim that it was not your will to burn!
(I think we discussed this already anyway)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
she made the accident
Did the accident violate the fetus's rights? No, I don't think so, the fetus wasn't even there at the time of the accident. It's like a car accident. You lost control of your car, but you didn't hit anything or anyone.
Quote:
(I think we discussed this already anyway)
When'd that happen?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Did the accident violate the fetus's rights? No, I don't think so, the fetus wasn't even there at the time of the accident. It's like a car accident. You lost control of your car, but you didn't hit anything or anyone.
The keyword is not 'hit' but 'involve'
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 09:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
since she made the accident
It cannot be a accident if it was made. It goes against the laws of logic.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 09:12 PM |
|
|
Ok, then let me rephrase it.
since she made the accident happen (it doesn't happen by itself)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 10:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The keyword is not 'hit' but 'involve'
The key word is "violate". When you hit someone, you violate their rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
