MoonShadow
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
 |
June 30, 2011, 03:27:15 AM |
|
AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life.
See, you've presented an argument for the claim made. NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead. MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative. Now... I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die. And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh? See, I can pull your bullshit too. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trust scores you see are subjective; they will change depending on who you have in your trust list. |
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
June 30, 2011, 03:29:36 AM |
|
I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.
You've actually made the best argument against a positive right to life I have ever seen. That said, I counter it with a negative right to life: I have the right to not be murdered before my naturally decreed time. |
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 30, 2011, 03:42:35 AM |
|
Ahhh philosophy.
What set of rules do we use to distinguish between the murderer and the environment?
Is not the murderer the environment?
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
June 30, 2011, 03:54:38 AM
Last edit: June 30, 2011, 04:08:51 AM by The Script |
|
AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life.
See, you've presented an argument for the claim made. NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead. MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative. Now... I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die. I specifically said "a chance at life" because obviously everyone dies at some point. Also, I personally wouldn't argue that your right to a chance at life is a natural law, maybe a natural right, but instead I would simply say that because I desire to live I concede that other organisms of the same species as me should have that same right. However as Myrkul says it's a negative right, it does not mean that i have a right to force everyone to provide for me, but rather that I have a right not to be murdered. Edit: Fixed a grammar mistake. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
June 30, 2011, 03:56:57 AM |
|
Ahhh philosophy.
What set of rules do we use to distinguish between the murderer and the environment?
Is not the murderer the environment?
Cogito ergo sum. Intent is the key. |
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
June 30, 2011, 03:57:58 AM |
|
AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some o
See, you've presented an argument for the claim made. NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead. MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative. Now... I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die. And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh? See, I can pull your bullshit too. Actually, I don't think that flying is violating the law of gravity because to do it you actually have to take gravity into account. I.E. create enough thrust or lift to counteract it. Would you agree? |
|
|
|
|
vector76
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 18
|
|
June 30, 2011, 04:02:05 AM |
|
Now...
I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.
What you are arguing is not natural law and has little to do with natural law. Natural law is not the laws of physics. Natural law has a specific meaning with regard to philosophy and the rights of people. In this specific definition it is understood to be an axiom, which can be accepted or not, and it cannot be proved or disproved. Since you seem so skilled at looking up stuff on Wikipedia, why don't you start there, rather than vomiting your ignorance all over this thread. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 30, 2011, 04:08:32 AM |
|
rather than vomiting your ignorance all over this thread.
Oh, the imagery that this conjures! |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 30, 2011, 04:11:07 AM |
|
AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some o
See, you've presented an argument for the claim made. NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead. MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative. Now... I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die. And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh? See, I can pull your bullshit too. Actually, I don't think that flying is violating the law of gravity because to do it you actually have to take gravity into account. I.E. create enough thrust or lift to counteract it. Would you agree? Yes, I would agree, I was using the tactic of mockery to highlight the ubsurdity that any 'natural law' is an absolute. The obvious differences between laws of science and laws of sociology notwithstanding. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 30, 2011, 07:49:10 AM |
|
How does Anarchy, Liberalism deal with AIDs infected babies?
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
June 30, 2011, 07:59:51 AM |
|
How does Anarchy, Liberalism deal with AIDs infected babies?
This is a thread about Anarchy. Liberalism should be asked in another thread. And how an Anarchy would deal with an AIDS infected baby would primarily be up to the mother. No doubt there would be Charities set up to help take care of them. |
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 30, 2011, 08:08:42 AM |
|
What if there are not charities?
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
June 30, 2011, 08:17:34 AM |
|
Friends, families, loans, begging on the street, Or here's a crazy thought: the mother could start a charity.
People always ignore entrepreneurship.
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:33:43 AM |
|
Friends, families, loans, begging on the street, Or here's a crazy thought: the mother could start a charity.
People always ignore entrepreneurship.
AIDS infected babies tend to have AIDS infected mothers. Would you lend money to someone who'd most likely wouldn't be able to pay it back? Begging on the street? You think that this is a better solution than what we currently have? Honestly? I feel like I'm reading reddit's /r/shittyadvice here. How about something that is actually an improvement? Bring something that makes life better for those in need, not worse. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:35:53 AM |
|
What if there are not charities?
If there are no charities, then man has no reasonable desire to help his fellow man. All human empathy must be lost. In this case, we're doomed as a species. In all reality, it's moot. There will be charities. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:41:12 AM |
|
You think that this is a better solution than what we currently have? Honestly?
Voluntary help vs helping someone or we shoot you? Yeah, I think that's better. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:42:30 AM |
|
You think that this is a better solution than what we currently have? Honestly?
Voluntary help vs helping someone or we shoot you? Yeah, I think that's better. The force means nothing to him. He has no respect for what he produces. |
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
June 30, 2011, 10:26:44 AM |
|
Voluntary help vs helping someone or we shoot you? Yeah, I think that's better.
And your solution if no voluntary help was available was to send sick people out to beg on the streets? Where is the love, man? If the place you're living is so violent that you're being shot at all the time, which it does sound like from your posts here, I suggest you move to some other less violent country. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 30, 2011, 11:32:13 AM |
|
Voluntary help vs helping someone or we shoot you? Yeah, I think that's better.
Where is the love, man? None if nobody is willing to help. |
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
June 30, 2011, 02:25:58 PM |
|
Where is the love, man?
None if nobody is willing to help. There is today, even if nobody is willing to help. |
|
|
|
|
