|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
posted July 11, 2008 09:32 AM |
|
|
Mvass:
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?
exactamento
"rights" is one of the most abused words in the english language. If you were to create a logical definition for it, you could say that a right is a freedom granted to you by the government. "You have the right to remain silent" means that you have the freedom to abstain from making comments without repercussions, granted by the government.
In the last 50 years the meaning of the word has been distorted to mean a natural god-given freedom that government shouldn't take from you. When you perpetuate this distortion it makes any type of reasonable discussion impossible.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 03:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the last 50 years the meaning of the word has been distorted to mean a natural god-given freedom that government shouldn't take from you. When you perpetuate this distortion it makes any type of reasonable discussion impossible.
I think that meaning is a lot older than 50 years. Ever heard of "natural rights"? And I think that that is the correct meaning, while the one that "the law giveth, and the law taketh away" is the wrong one. Laws merely protect rights, but morals give us rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In the last 50 years the meaning of the word has been distorted to mean a natural god-given freedom that government shouldn't take from you. When you perpetuate this distortion it makes any type of reasonable discussion impossible.
I think that meaning is a lot older than 50 years. Ever heard of "natural rights"? And I think that that is the correct meaning, while the one that "the law giveth, and the law taketh away" is the wrong one. Laws merely protect rights, but morals give us rights.
When you say "natural rights" you are using a much more absolute one (not the relative law-one) 
Oh and natural rights include "disturbing" or "involvement", not only "violation" as you say -- the latter applies to law-rights so to speak.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 03:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you say "natural rights" you are using a much more absolute one
As I said before, I am neither a moral relativist nor a moral absolutist, but somewhere in between. And I am not entirely an advocate of natural rights. I think that we get our rights from the social contract (not from any government). And the one fundamental right is the right to for the self and one's property to not be aggressed against.
Quote:
Oh and natural rights include "disturbing" or "involvement", not only "violation" as you say
"I know it is so. I have said so. Therefore it is so."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I said before, I am neither a moral relativist nor a moral absolutist, but somewhere in between. And I am not entirely an advocate of natural rights. I think that we get our rights from the social contract (not from any government). And the one fundamental right is the right to for the self and one's property to not be aggressed against.
"Social contract" includes the "Life contract" -- that is, you are responsible and obligated for any life you bring to the world
(as much as people are obligated to follow the social contract anyway, since murderers don't give a **** about it)
Quote:
Quote:
Oh and natural rights include "disturbing" or "involvement", not only "violation" as you say
"I know it is so. I have said so. Therefore it is so."
Think about it. Why are people using the 'rights' in the first place? Because they don't want to be disturbed. It's not a mathematical model with a given time instant, because people are not like that. A guy who gets that virus WILL WANT to blame the one who unleashed the virus before he was born. This is how the so-called "social contract" works -- I disturb you, you are annoyed. I involve you in an accident, you are annoyed. Simple really.
The only thing that may stop that guy is the government, which we already know has other types of "rights".
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 04:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Social contract" includes the "Life contract" -- that is, you are responsible and obligated for any life you bring to the world
Or so you say. I disagree.
Quote:
as much as people are obligated to follow the social contract anyway, since murderers don't give a **** about it
And they are punished for it.
Quote:
A guy who gets that virus WILL WANT to blame the one who unleashed the virus before he was born. This is how the so-called "social contract" works -- I disturb you, you are annoyed. I involve you in an accident, you are annoyed.
I agree. But I don't think that the virus example is analagous to the fetus example. The virus is inherently negative. Life isn't. Also, you can pinpoint the exact moment when the baby's rights are violated by the virus: birth, since that's when it's infected. With life, you can't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 04:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And they are punished for it.
The law punishes, not the social contract
Quote:
I agree. But I don't think that the virus example is analagous to the fetus example. The virus is inherently negative. Life isn't. Also, you can pinpoint the exact moment when the baby's rights are violated by the virus: birth, since that's when it's infected. With life, you can't.
1) Why can't you with life? I mean, the given time instant in which the rights are violated is also the EXACTLY same time it gets life (and rights), so a conclusion is purely subjective (well actually, the thing with time-instants is so subjective anyway because in truth it doesn't even exist!).
2) You unleashed the virus before he was born -- thus, your "action" was made before -- that was the whole point of the example. That is, if it gets infected later, it wouldn't be your fault in this flawed system, since the given time-instant at which you performed the action was before he/she was born. The virus then just "moved" by itself as far as the baby is concerned since wasn't alive when you unleashed it. This is one amongst many flaws in the system.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The law punishes, not the social contract
But the law is established because of the social contract.
Quote:
I mean, the given time instant in which the rights are violated is also the EXACTLY same time it gets life
No, it doesn't work that way. You see, at the instant before conception, it has no rights, so you can't violate them. So when you give life (even if it was inherently negative, which it isn't) you aren't violating its rights, because it doesn't have any. Whether or not you think that fetuses have rights, you're not going to say that nonexistent beings have rights. And, in the instant before conception, when you give life to the fetus, the fetus doesn't exist, so its rights can't be violated.
Quote:
That is, if it gets infected later, it wouldn't be your fault in this flawed system, since the given time-instant at which you performed the action was before he/she was born.
No, that's not how it works at all, because by that logic you can't be punished for firing a gun, either, because you only pulled the trigger. It's not a flaw in the system because that's not how the system works. You are not violating anybody's rights when you release the virus; you're violating the baby's rights at the moment of infection. Infection is not analogous to conception for a couple of reasons. First, without conception, the fetus wouldn't exist at all, whereas the baby would still exist if it wasn't infected. Second, when the baby is born, it already has rights (since it's definitely viable at that point). Thus, infecting a baby at the time of birth is just like infecting a 2-year old or an adult, whereas you can't conceive a 2-year old or an adult.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 05:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, that's not how it works at all, because by that logic you can't be punished for firing a gun, either, because you only pulled the trigger. It's not a flaw in the system because that's not how the system works. You are not violating anybody's rights when you release the virus; you're violating the baby's rights at the moment of infection. Infection is not analogous to conception for a couple of reasons. First, without conception, the fetus wouldn't exist at all, whereas the baby would still exist if it wasn't infected. Second, when the baby is born, it already has rights (since it's definitely viable at that point). Thus, infecting a baby at the time of birth is just like infecting a 2-year old or an adult, whereas you can't conceive a 2-year old or an adult.
The gun is different: you pull the trigger, while the person you shoot at is ALIVE.
Whether it was alive or not during pressing the trigger doesn't matter or violate its rights (analogous to unleashing the virus). That is, you don't violate rights when you unleash the virus (press the trigger), but when you infect them (bullet hits them). Thus, it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive prior to conception (as it doesn't matter above with the virus either), but what happens after the infection (after conception).
So basically, let's say that the virus can't be 'detected' until 5 minutes before it infects it. So his rights are violated then at that time. Similar with conception. It is not the action when you unleash the respective thing, but afterwards when it is "infected" (conceived).
As for life being inherently a negative thing, THINK AGAIN about a virus. Maybe the virus turns him into Superman! Maybe he likes it. The same as in life. It's exactly the same as with a virus case -- where virus can be positive or negative
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 05:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Thus, it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive prior to conception (as it doesn't matter above with the virus either), but what happens after the infection (after conception).
Here I disagree. What matters after the infection/conception is what determines whether it is inherently negative. If most of the time the person suffers because of virus/life, then it's inherently negative. If most of the time they don't, then it's not. But the actual violation of rights happens when the person is afflicted with the inherently negative thing. For example, a bullet wound is inherently negative. But you can't talk about life in the same sense for two reasons. First, life isn't inherently negative. Second, when the baby is infected, it definitely has rights, while at the moment of conception the fetus doesn't have any rights, as it doesn't exist.
Quote:
let's say that the virus can't be 'detected' until 5 minutes before it infects it. So his rights are violated then at that time
No, its rights are violated when it's infected, not when it's detected.
Quote:
THINK AGAIN about a virus. Maybe the virus turns him into Superman!
Well, then, the virus isn't inherently negative, so the baby's rights aren't violated.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 06:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you can't talk about life in the same sense for two reasons. First, life isn't inherently negative. Second, when the baby is infected, it definitely has rights, while at the moment of conception the fetus doesn't have any rights, as it doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as "the moment of conception" when talking about rights or life -- there is only BEFORE (no rights) and AFTER (rights). But since life is by no means just an instant thing, I consider it AFTER.
Quote:
No, its rights are violated when it's infected, not when it's detected.
If you don't know when something infected you, how can you be sure that your rights have been violated 5 minutes ago (detected means IMPOSSIBLE to detect)
Quote:
Well, then, the virus isn't inherently negative, so the baby's rights aren't violated.
But some viruses are inherently negative -- see it's the same with life. I mean, it depends how that virus affects the person in question. Some viruses are inherently negative, some aren't, depending on the person infected.
Thus, some life is inherently positive, some not, depending on the person conceived. And in a fetus' case that is about to be aborted, I take it negative
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 06:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no such thing as "the moment of conception" when talking about rights or life -- there is only BEFORE (no rights) and AFTER (rights).
And the moment of conception is when that line is crossed. And you can't say that a fetus gets life when it's already alive, now can you?
Quote:
If you don't know when something infected you, how can you be sure that your rights have been violated 5 minutes ago (detected means IMPOSSIBLE to detect)
I thought that the virus infected the baby at the moment of birth.
Quote:
But some viruses are inherently negative -- see it's the same with life. I mean, it depends how that virus affects the person in question. Some viruses are inherently negative, some aren't, depending on the person infected.
Well, you have the HIV virus, the polio virus, and others... They're different. Some of them do nothing, while some are very harmful. But different kinds of viruses are different from each other. You can't make that kind of distinction with life. You can say, "This is an HIV virus. It's very harmful.", and you can say, "This virus is completely unnoticeable, and basically does nothing." But you can't say something like that about life. See, it depends on the virus, but whether a life is positive or negative doesn't depend of life. Life is just that - life. So giving life is not like giving a virus.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, you have the HIV virus, the polio virus, and others... They're different. Some of them do nothing, while some are very harmful. But different kinds of viruses are different from each other. You can't make that kind of distinction with life. You can say, "This is an HIV virus. It's very harmful.", and you can say, "This virus is completely unnoticeable, and basically does nothing." But you can't say something like that about life. See, it depends on the virus, but whether a life is positive or negative doesn't depend of life. Life is just that - life. So giving life is not like giving a virus.
I said that it depends on the person infected and let me re-give you the example from some pages back.
Someone gets the virus. The virus makes him grow 4 more arms (thus he has 6 total). He likes it, the virus is positive.
Someone else gets the virus. He doesn't like it, the virus is negative.
Same with life.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 06:40 PM |
|
|
That doesn't sound like any virus I know of. Anyway, since such a virus has a reasonable chance of violating the person's rights, it shouldn't be spread. But I'm talking about actual viruses that exist. There's no real point in constructing analogies that don't work, as we have discussed earlier.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 06:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That doesn't sound like any virus I know of. Anyway, since such a virus has a reasonable chance of violating the person's rights, it shouldn't be spread. But I'm talking about actual viruses that exist. There's no real point in constructing analogies that don't work, as we have discussed earlier.
But such a 'virus' does exist, it's called "life". Surely you don't expect me to find two viruses that share the same qualities?
But I feel this is going in circles since this stuff has been said some pages back. I don't think I have anything new to say at this point (apart from arguing with you over stuff I already said). I'll try to find something new until then.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2008 06:51 PM |
|
|
After 22 pages of quote wars, we have finally exhausted most of what there is to be discussed on this subject. And neither of our opinions was changed. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 01:55 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 13:56, 08 Jul 2009.
|
Scientists Create Human Sperm from Stem Cells
Researchers at Newcastle University in England report they have coaxed the first human sperm cells from embryonic stem cells, in a remarkable demonstration of how quickly the field of stem-cell science is moving.
Here is the full article.
I think this shows how vast the potential is for stem cell research, and it should be continued. However the morality of creating custom made humans is on the rise again after this news, but even if something can be done it doesn't mean it will be done.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 02:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
if something can be done it doesn't mean it will be done.
Name three inventions that could've been used for immoral purposes that weren't used for immoral purposes.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 02:15 PM |
|
|
Let's just put it this way : I think the benefits of stem cell research greatly outweight the inevitable new possibilities of "immoral science"(which is rather hard to define) that arise from it. We already have legislation to forbid other things that we don't want done but we are capable of. It is just the same here. I don't think we should hinder/end development in the fear that at some time in the future the legislation might change.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 03:57 PM |
|
|
When will we see created slaves/soldiers no one cares about? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
