wilderness: zefreak: Are you daft? He is equivocating morality and legality. Isn't this exactly what a natural rights advocate like yourself would reject? this is old. read the rest of the thread
zefreak: Are you daft? He is equivocating morality and legality. Isn't this exactly what a natural rights advocate like yourself would reject?
Are you daft? He is equivocating morality and legality. Isn't this exactly what a natural rights advocate like yourself would reject?
this is old. read the rest of the thread
So you just didn't realize what he was doing when you called me out on it?
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
wilderness: zefreak: What about animals that are clearly territorial? More importantly, all animals have the "potential" for self-awareness, and there is evidence that many do have varying degrees of consciousness, including empathy. old already answered this, but you are a skeptic of the intellect so I can't readily respond to you anyway. and I'm not going to teach you. but I'll let you know. everything you said - HAS nothing to do with what I'm saying. Some animals might have it - so what? And rock have the potential of being a rocket scientist too - yeah someday. This is why discussing with a skeptic is to vacate logic. Aristotle and Kant were right about this. I'll stick to science than get stuck talking with a sophist.
zefreak: What about animals that are clearly territorial? More importantly, all animals have the "potential" for self-awareness, and there is evidence that many do have varying degrees of consciousness, including empathy.
What about animals that are clearly territorial? More importantly, all animals have the "potential" for self-awareness, and there is evidence that many do have varying degrees of consciousness, including empathy.
old already answered this, but you are a skeptic of the intellect so I can't readily respond to you anyway. and I'm not going to teach you.
but I'll let you know. everything you said - HAS nothing to do with what I'm saying. Some animals might have it - so what? And rock have the potential of being a rocket scientist too - yeah someday. This is why discussing with a skeptic is to vacate logic. Aristotle and Kant were right about this. I'll stick to science than get stuck talking with a sophist.
Kant could at least use a syllogism, which is useful when you have to, you know, justify an assertion rather than just stating that "it is"?
What does it mean to be a skeptic of the intellect? If you are referring to the impossibility of intellectually "divining" right and wrong, I would consider that upholding the virtues of strict logic, and not falling victim of equivocation and hasty generalizations.
zefreak: So you just didn't realize what he was doing when you called me out on it?
No. I know Spideynw's position, but I don't know yours. In that post of his I didn't see anything that dismisses potentiality in realizing and thus being able to rationalize with other people to avoid conflict. Children can learn to rationalize with other people and someday they will not need a guardian. A mentally illed person can somebody realize rights being that they are human too and other people take care of people that can't currently recognize rights. People try to guide them. But if a mentally ill person or a child is breaking into a persons house that owner has to right to stop them. If a dog or a completely rational person that knows what they are doing (breaking into a house) the owner has the right to stop them. Anyone of these creatures might listen. Even a dog might listen to, "HEY Stop it!". Then good. But at any point this doesn't happen and any one of these creatures are still coming and all talk has failed then the owner has the right to stop them.
aside from this, any other skepticism you may hold, I will not get into as that being your intention - to be skeptic and find a way to tear down any intellectual construct about this world no matter what the mind has contemplated upon in this world - no need to discuss further.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Spideynw: wilderness:I know that is your argument and I disagree with it. It has lead to inconsistencies not only in this thread but in other threads that I object to. How is that?
wilderness:I know that is your argument and I disagree with it. It has lead to inconsistencies not only in this thread but in other threads that I object to.
How is that?
I don't know if you re-read my original post you responded to here. I did an edit. sorry
Spideynw, please entertain us with your comprehensive doctrine of "parent's rights".
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
wilderness:here is life. There is liberty. There is property. Conceptual boundaries can be drawn and define each of these. When a right is violated it IS a life, liberty, and property being violated.
OK, I will concede your point.
But if I kill someone out of "self-defense", is it wrong? Did I violate his or her supposed "right to life"?
If you agree that killing someone out of self-defense is not wrong, then you are saying the person that was killed did NOT have a right to life. However, on the other hand, you claim we all do have a right to life. So which is it?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw, please entertain us with your comprehensive doctrine of "parent's rights".
Why? There is a whole other thread about it.
Spideynw: ...you claim... right to life.
...you claim... right to life.
I never said right to life. I pointed out what each person has already, inherently. These are not what people try to get - they already possess these rights. They are negative (natural) as opposed to positive (legislated) rights. I thought you knew this.
wilderness: Spideynw: ...you claim... right to life. I never said right to life. I pointed out what each person has already, inherently. These are not what people try to get - they already possess these rights. They are negative (natural) as opposed to positive (legislated) rights. I thought you knew this.
We are just talking semantics. I just do not see it going anywhere.
alimentarius: So if I found a baby in the forest, I could smash it dead?
So if I found a baby in the forest, I could smash it dead?
You could, but it would be unlibertarian.
alimentarius: Potential, so what? Are you anti-abortion? Are you anti-condom? Condon users deny potential moral agents coming into existence.
Potential, so what? Are you anti-abortion? Are you anti-condom? Condon users deny potential moral agents coming into existence.
alimentarius: If you're anti killing babies, how can you be pro choice? If it'swrong to kill a baby, it must be wrong to kill a fetus. None of them have any concepts of rights. Both of them are potential moral beings.
If you're anti killing babies, how can you be pro choice?
If it'swrong to kill a baby, it must be wrong to kill a fetus. None of them have any concepts of rights. Both of them are potential moral beings.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Saan:Woof, Woof, Grrrrrrrrr, heeem heeem heeem, woof, grrr, Ow Ow owwwwwww. Woof. pant pant pant.
(from Secret of Monkey Island)
zefreak:I think it is an invalid comparison, but it's not worth arguing.
No it's not, in this case why should one claim that rationality doesn't play a part in the demarcation in rights? Because you feel it's not the case. Then I guess all the years of AI researchers and neurologists and psychologists puzzling over the nature of cognition and self as identity are just wrong? Or maybe I'm extending the point beyond its limits, either way that's how I interpret your response to theirs in terms of the demarcation of rights between humans and non-humans.
Your concept of rights is not Rothbardian, nor natural, and therefor outside of the scope of this argument.
It doesn't matter in this case what's being suggested is that non-human animals of certain classifications have the same rights (not similar). Whether you're bitching about Rothbardian interpretation or not, my argument is still within the scope and bounds of the thread at large (such as we're talking about HUMAN RIGHTS APPLYING TO NON-HUMAN ANIMALS). So, why don't you just admit that you don't feel it's not worth your time to argue over my pov, that's fine. But to play any dishonest games of defining what kind of theory of rights or what particular branch we're talking about is silly. So don't do it, k (Hint: the OP DID NOT FRAME THE ARGUMENT BEYOND A SIMPLE QUESTION)?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw, please entertain us with your comprehensive doctrine of "parent's rights". Why? There is a whole other thread about it.
link? Is there something you are embarrassed to say. It could be your idea that: since your own flesh and blood infant can not object to you using it as a sex toy, you can happily enjoy your children as sex toys. Don't attempt to distance yourself from the implications of your blathering by stating it as some done and over with, widely accepted view it is not. It is humorous that you pretend to be a radical libertarian while expressing 18th century views on wives, children, and domestics. We'll again ignore that your "theory" means it is okay to pick a sleeping man's pocket, or stab him in the neck.
I don't think the real issue is whether or not doing something is "ok." The question is do (natural) rights exist? I would say no. If they do exist, do they protect the sleeping man? Observably, not.
E. R. Olovetto:It could be your idea that: since your own flesh and blood infant can not object to you using it as a sex toy, you can happily enjoy your children as sex toys.
Yes, you can. And someone may find out about it, and kill you, regardless of the legality.
E. R. Olovetto:We'll again ignore that your "theory" means it is okay to pick a sleeping man's pocket, or stab him in the neck.
My reasoning suggests no such thing. Refusing to ask for permission just because someone is sleeping, does not give one the right to do whatever he or she wants to another. Refusing to ask permission and being unable to ask permission are two completely different things.
Esuric: Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.
Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.
Does biting your face off count as claiming their rights? Or do they need to speak in a language that you can understand?
jmorris84:Does biting your face off count as claiming their rights?
No.
Spideynw: jmorris84:Does biting your face off count as claiming their rights? No.
So then they need to speak your language in order for you to understand.
jmorris84: So then they need to speak your language in order for you to understand.
No. There has to be evidence to believe that they can reason and self-actualize.
laminustacitus: Its a good question why animals do not have rights in a Rothbardian framework for animals have control over their bodies, so would it not follow that they own themselves, and that we need to apply the non-aggression axiom in our relations with them?
Its a good question why animals do not have rights in a Rothbardian framework for animals have control over their bodies, so would it not follow that they own themselves, and that we need to apply the non-aggression axiom in our relations with them?
:-) Haha, here we go again,no?
My take on that is :
1.) rights are concepts to avoid or minimize conflicts between humans over scarce resources.
2.) self-ownership is human concept and aplies to humans
3.) humans can use their rational mind to agree on rights, animals might be able to do that as well within their own species but sure not between species.
4.) Unless we aim for extinction we should not engage in suicidal ideas regarding other species and their rights.
5.) Another question is what ethical views one has regarding animals and how to cope with them.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap