Page 66 of 68 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 673

Thread: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

  1. #651
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Thus proving that no natural right to life exists.
    How does that prove that? Just because you will die doesn't mean or imply that you don't have the right to not be killed by another human being. Does it?

    A natural desire to live exists, but not a right to live.
    Well the two have nothing to do with each other, so..

    Why would that be the fundamental purpose of government? If we know anything for certain, every government does the exact opposite on occasion. Our own government does it more often than most. So why would you think that that is the fundamental purpose of government when the evidence suggests that there is no way that could possibly be it's fundamental purpose?
    Well ok then, what is the fundamental purpose of government to you? I happen to believe the fundamental purpose of government is protect the natural rights of people. What do you think is its fundamental purpose?
    Last edited by Henrin; 10-30-12 at 08:54 AM.

  2. #652
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Natural rights philosophers do not define reality. We're discussing facts, not opinions. It is a fact that a natural right to life cannot possibly exist.



    I'm quite familiar with the concept. Did I say anything about laws, society, customs or beliefs? Of course not. Nothing at all about what I'm saying relates to positive law in any way.

    I'm not disagreeing with the concept of natural rights, I'm disagreeing with one particular thing that most of them have mistakenly described as a natural right. I've done this by showing logically how it cannot possibly be a natural right.

    It's not my fault that many natural rights philosophers failed to fully vet their premises on their claims about a natural right to life.
    Hobbes was on the money whe he discussed the idea that every man has a natural right to use his power, intellect and abilities to preserve his own life. He doesn't say that every man has a natural right to life because, as you point out, that is one thing that no one has ever had. It is natural however that he use whatever he can to protect his life for as long as possible.

    He also said though, that in his natural state, every man has a natural right to every thing (including other men) and is only limited by his ability to achieve that. This leads to his observation that in a natural state there would be a constant war of everyone against everyone else, leading to human lives being 'nasty, brutish, and short'.

    So, not only are our natural rights advocates wrong about the existence of a natural right to life, they are also wrong in seeing the recognition of such 'natural rights' as fundamentally preeminent or inalienable.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  3. #653
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    How does that prove that? Just because you will die doesn't mean or imply that you don't have the right to not be killed by another human being?
    That's not a natural right to life, that's claiming that a natural right to not be killed by another human being exists.

    But there's nothing at all which would imply, in any way, that any such natural right exists.

    In fact, nobody even believes that such a right exists. Nobody.

    The follow up to any claims about the existence of a natural right to not be killed by another human being is a claim that, because of this "right", that there exists a natural right to self-defense, even if that self-defense requires a human being to kill another human being.

    In the simplest terms, this is saying that a natural right to kill another human being under certain specific conditions exists. If we have one natural right to not be killed by another human being, we cannot simultaneously possess a natural right to kill another human being under ANY circumstances. It's paradoxical.

    So either the natural right to self defense exists or the natural right to not be killed by another human being exists, but both "natural rights" cannot possibly exist simultaneously due to the above paradox.

    Since we know that almost everybody supports at least one circumstance where one human being kills another, we can say that no human being agrees that there exists a natural right to not be killed by another human being.

    However, that doesn't mean that such a natural right doesn't exist. It merely means that nobody actually believes that such a natural right exists. Everyone could be wrong on that, though.


    Well the two have nothing to do with each other, so..
    Not really. The reason why people fool themselves into believing that a natural right to life exists is because of that natural desire to live. It's why people say "try to prevent death" rather than "try to postpone death". People don't like to think about their innate mortality. They dislike the fact of their eventual demise so much that they actively avoid thinking about it.

    In order to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a right to life, though, one must directly address the certainty of death. The natural desire to live ends up in conflict with the reality of certain non-existence, making the thought exercise an unpleasant one rather than entertaining one. This is why so many natural philosophers came to such an obviously false conclusion about the existence of a natural right to life.

    They may have been correct about other natural rights, however, such as the aforementioned natural right to self-defense. Unfortunately for their logical arguments, they started with the premise that the natural right to life exists in order to claim that the natural right to self-defense exists. Of course, the unsound nature of that specific argument doesn't negate the possibility of the conclusion being true.





    Well ok then, what is the purpose of government to you?
    All of the evidence available implies that the purpose of government is to unite groups of like-minded individuals under a single set of codified rules to create a specific culture and society with a clear hierarchy and consequences for violating the agreed upon rules. It appears to be an extension of our natural social tendencies as a social animal coupled with our higher order intellect (as compared to other known animals).

    I happen to believe the purpose of government is protect the natural rights of people and I'm very interested in hearing what you think.
    How can the government's primary purpose be to do something which it cannot possibly do with any certainty? We can only guess at what is or is not a natural right, and that's when we're operating under the prima facie assumption that such things even exist. If we start from a more accurate prima facie assumption that they may or may not exist, we add an even greater level of uncertainty to what we are attempting to do. We are first guessing that they do exist, and then guessing at which one's are accurately labeled as such.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #654
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Hobbes was on the money whe he discussed the idea that every man has a natural right to use his power, intellect and abilities to preserve his own life. He doesn't say that every man has a natural right to life because, as you point out, that is one thing that no one has ever had. It is natural however that he use whatever he can to protect his life for as long as possible.

    He also said though, that in his natural state, every man has a natural right to every thing (including other men) and is only limited by his ability to achieve that. This leads to his observation that in a natural state there would be a constant war of everyone against everyone else, leading to human lives being 'nasty, brutish, and short'.

    So, not only are our natural rights advocates wrong about the existence of a natural right to life, they are also wrong in seeing the recognition of such 'natural rights' as fundamentally preeminent or inalienable.
    I completely agree with the above.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #655
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's not a natural right to life, that's claiming that a natural right to not be killed by another human being exists.

    But there's nothing at all which would imply, in any way, that any such natural right exists.
    What exactly is a right to you?

    In fact, nobody even believes that such a right exists. Nobody.
    That is simply not true. Many people believe it on this very forum.

    The follow up to any claims about the existence of a natural right to not be killed by another human being is a claim that, because of this "right", that there exists a natural right to self-defense, even if that self-defense requires a human being to kill another human being.

    In the simplest terms, this is saying that a natural right to kill another human being under certain specific conditions exists. If we have one natural right to not be killed by another human being, we cannot simultaneously possess a natural right to kill another human being under ANY circumstances. It's paradoxical.
    No, they can very well co-exist. Maintaining the condition is the goal of the right and therefore it is understandable if action is taken to persevere it from aggressors at the time of attack.

    So either the natural right to self defense exists or the natural right to not be killed by another human being exists, but both "natural rights" cannot possibly exist simultaneously due to the above paradox.
    There so paradox. Since the above individual is attempting to cause harm to the life of the one party their life is therefore forfeit for the survival of the other party that is being attacked by them.

    Since we know that almost everybody supports at least one circumstance where one human being kills another, we can say that no human being agrees that there exists a natural right to not be killed by another human being.

    However, that doesn't mean that such a natural right doesn't exist. It merely means that nobody actually believes that such a natural right exists. Everyone could be wrong on that, though.
    How is it exactly unreasonable to take steps to preserve the right from aggressors? I'm a bit lost on how that isn't in line with the protection of the right?


    Not really. The reason why people fool themselves into believing that a natural right to life exists is because of that natural desire to live. It's why people say "try to prevent death" rather than "try to postpone death". People don't like to think about their innate mortality. They dislike the fact of their eventual demise so much that they actively avoid thinking about it.
    I don't know anyone that using the argument in a way to run away from the fact that they will one day die.

    In order to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a right to life, though, one must directly address the certainty of death. The natural desire to live ends up in conflict with the reality of certain non-existence, making the thought exercise an unpleasant one rather than entertaining one. This is why so many natural philosophers came to such an obviously false conclusion about the existence of a natural right to life.
    That is silly. They came to conclusion on the right because of the natural existence of life and the desirable effects of such a result of protecting it.

    They may have been correct about other natural rights, however, such as the aforementioned natural right to self-defense. Unfortunately for their logical arguments, they started with the premise that the natural right to life exists in order to claim that the natural right to self-defense exists. Of course, the unsound nature of that specific argument doesn't negate the possibility of the conclusion being true.
    It is perfectly sound because self defense is preserving the desired condition.


    All of the evidence available implies that the purpose of government is to unite groups of like-minded individuals under a single set of codified rules to create a specific culture and society with a clear hierarchy and consequences for violating the agreed upon rules. It appears to be an extension of our natural social tendencies as a social animal coupled with our higher order intellect (as compared to other known animals).
    Well if that is the reason than it would be fair to say it never did that either.

    How can the government's primary purpose be to do something which it cannot possibly do with any certainty? We can only guess at what is or is not a natural right, and that's when we're operating under the prima facie assumption that such things even exist. If we start from a more accurate prima facie assumption that they may or may not exist, we add an even greater level of uncertainty to what we are attempting to do. We are first guessing that they do exist, and then guessing at which one's are accurately labeled as such.
    There is no guessing on what applies.

    Life
    Property
    Liberty

    Do I need to define them for you? I don't understand how this isn't easy to follow.

  6. #656
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    What exactly is a right to you?
    "something that one may properly claim as due" or "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"

    Nobody is "due" a life by nature, nor are they entitled to one by nature.

    That is simply not true. Many people believe it on this very forum.
    I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being. Everyone creates arbitrary exceptions. If exceptions exist, then the right cannot exist.



    No, they can very well co-exist.
    Saying it doesn't make it so. Mutually exclusive situations cannot exist.

    Maintaining the condition is the goal of the right and therefore it is understandable if action is taken to persevere it from aggressors at the time of attack.
    That violates the right of the other person, thus paradox.

    There so paradox. Since the above individual is attempting to cause harm to the life of the one party their life is therefore forfeit for the survival of the other party that is being attacked by them.
    A natural right cannot be forfeit. Only legal rights can be forfeited. Natural rights would be innate and inalienable. If they are inalienable they cannot be forfeited.

    How is it exactly unreasonable to take steps to preserve the right from aggressors?
    What right? No natural right to life exists, as I have shown repeatedly.

    A right to self-defense might exist, but that's a different matter altogether. It's certainly not unreasonable to exercise a right to self-defense.

    I'm a bit lost on how that isn't in line with the protection of the right?
    You can't protect something which doesn't exist. No such right to life exists. Just because you want there to be a natural right to life doesn't make it so. You won't be lost if you respond to what is actually said instead of imaginary things you have made up to replace that which was said.

    I don't know anyone that using the argument in a way to run away from the fact that they will one day die.
    They may make passing reference to death's inevitability, but then they dutifully ignore it in their logic.


    That is silly. They came to conclusion on the right because of the natural existence of life and the desirable effects of such a result of protecting it.
    Nonsense. They came to that conclusion because they ignored all of the evidence which proves it wrong.

    It is perfectly sound because self defense is preserving the desired condition.
    If that's your argument, it cannot possibly be sound because you are engaging in the fallacy of four terms. Thus, the logic is now invalid as well as unsound.




    Well if that is the reason than it would be fair to say it never did that either.
    Why? Do we not have laws? do we not have culture/ Do we not have society? What is your basis for the claim above?

    There is no guessing on what applies.

    Life
    Property
    Liberty
    Those are obviously guesses. And sadly, they aren't even your guesses.

    One of them has been proven to be a false guess. One is something which has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, but is instead a social construct, and the last is the very thing that governments exist to place limitations upon.


    Do I need to define them for you?
    I seriously doubt you are capable of doing so with any accuracy.

    I don't understand how this isn't easy to follow.
    It's very easy to follow. It's also very easy to see that it is false, provided one chooses not to ignore all of the evidence proving it to be pure guesswork.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #657
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    "something that one may properly claim as due" or "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"

    Nobody is "due" a life by nature, nor are they entitled to one by nature.
    Ok then, so we now have that established.

    I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being. Everyone creates arbitrary exceptions. If exceptions exist, then the right cannot exist.
    Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.

    Saying it doesn't make it so. Mutually exclusive situations cannot exist.
    They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.

    That violates the right of the other person, thus paradox.
    His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.

    A natural right cannot be forfeit. Only legal rights can be forfeited. Natural rights would be innate and inalienable. If they are inalienable they cannot be forfeited.
    If you are in the act of killing another it is the right of the person being attacked to protect themselves in any way possible. Its simply a matter of where rights begin and others end.


    What right? No natural right to life exists, as I have shown repeatedly.
    You haven't really shown it doesn't, just like I haven't shown it does. This entire talk so fair has been a bit fruitless.


    You can't protect something which doesn't exist. No such right to life exists. Just because you want there to be a natural right to life doesn't make it so. You won't be lost if you respond to what is actually said instead of imaginary things you have made up to replace that which was said.
    Oh ok, so we are back there again. Figures.

    They may make passing reference to death's inevitability, but then they dutifully ignore it in their logic.
    I have a feeling you don't understand their logic. I haven't seen anyone come and say death isn't a factor and won't necessarily occur. Instead they focus on preservation of life from the aggression of others. If that life ends from natural accords has no bearing on anything.

    Nonsense. They came to that conclusion because they ignored all of the evidence which proves it wrong.
    Says who?

    If that's your argument, it cannot possibly be sound because you are engaging in the fallacy of four terms. Thus, the logic is now invalid as well as unsound.
    What? How?

    Why? Do we not have laws? do we not have culture/ Do we not have society? What is your basis for the claim above?
    Government doesn't unite people of like minds. It never has. This debate right here is a evidence of that. It makes people follow the laws regardless if they agree or not. If we wish to talk of what society actually does, that is what it actually does.

    Those are obviously guesses. And sadly, they aren't even your guesses.
    I will face the former later, but I never said anything I said here is from me.

    One of them has been proven to be a false guess. One is something which has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, but is instead a social construct, and the last is the very thing that governments exist to place limitations upon.

    Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
    Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
    Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

    They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.

    I seriously doubt you are capable of doing so with any accuracy.
    Well ok, tell me how I did then.

    It's very easy to follow. It's also very easy to see that it is false, provided one chooses not to ignore all of the evidence proving it to be pure guesswork.
    Well you haven't provided such evidence.
    Last edited by Henrin; 10-30-12 at 11:54 AM.

  8. #658
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    I don't want to interrupt this very interested exchange, but I'd just point out a few logical flaws in this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.
    He didn't say 'self-defence', he said "I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being." The right to self-defence is not the same thing at all.


    They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.
    You cannot have the natural right to life and then have a natural right to kill others, even in self-defence. You can have the legal right to do so, or you can have the natural right to do so if you recognise that the natural right to life does not exist. The paradox is clear.


    His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.
    Then his right to life was not inalienable - it would be alienated, and not by his own hand nor his own actions.

    Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
    Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
    Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

    They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.
    That's three fallacies in one sentence - bolded.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  9. #659
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    I don't want to interrupt this very interested exchange, but I'd just point out a few logical flaws in this post:

    He didn't say 'self-defence', he said "I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being." The right to self-defence is not the same thing at all.
    He said that it was an exception, and its not.

    You cannot have the natural right to life and then have a natural right to kill others, even in self-defence. You can have the legal right to do so, or you can have the natural right to do so if you recognise that the natural right to life does not exist. The paradox is clear.
    I believe he already said what you did there.


    Then his right to life was not inalienable - it would be alienated, and not by his own hand nor his own actions.
    His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.

    That's three fallacies in one sentence - bolded.
    All are desired conditions, all our natural, and all take no aggression to gain. No fallacy.

  10. #660
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.
    Where did you get that idea from?



    They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.
    One logically contradicts the other, as I have demonstrated quite clearly.



    His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.
    Thus, the right is not inalienable, ergo it is not a natural right.



    If you are in the act of killing another it is the right of the person being attacked to protect themselves in any way possible.
    Who said anything about being in the act of killing another? We're talking about self-defense. This act is not limited to times when life is threatened.

    Its simply a matter of where rights begin and others end.
    That's a discussion for legal rights, not natural rights.




    You haven't really shown it doesn't, just like I haven't shown it does. This entire talk so fair has been a bit fruitless.
    False. I've shown it repeatedly. You've just ignored it repeatedly by virtue of invalid logical defenses of a false belief.




    Oh ok, so we are back there again. Figures.
    Back there? We never left there. Just because you haven't acknowledged the facts does not mean the facts do not remain facts.


    I have a feeling you don't understand their logic.
    I do not believe you are a competent judge of such things.


    I haven't seen anyone come and say death isn't a factor and won't necessarily occur.
    Speaking of not understanding logic, Where on Earth did you get the very silly idea that that would somehow matter?

    Instead they focus on preservation of life from the aggression of others.
    That would be the basis for a natural right to self defense argument, not a natural right to life argument. I've clearly stated that a natural right to self-defense can exist. It is a very different thing than a natural right to life.

    If that life ends from natural accords has no bearing on anything.
    It has no bearing on a natural right to self defense, as I have already noted, but it absolutely has bearing on the existence of non-existence of a natural right to life.

    Says who?
    Says logic.



    What? How?
    how can you possibly make the asinine claim that I don't understand anyone's logic if you don't understand what a fallacy of four terms is? Seriously.


    Government doesn't unite people of like minds.
    Partially true. Only democratic governments do it. I should have been clearer on that.

    It never has.
    False. The United States is a great example of it doing so.

    This debate right here is a evidence of that.
    I see the problem. You think like-minded means Identically minded. It does not mean that. It means similar in values, beliefs, and morality. While we differ on the details, the American public is very like-minded, for the most part. Outliers will exist, but they are scorned and rejected by society.

    It makes people follow the laws regardless if they agree or not.
    Exactly. Unite the like-minded, reject/punish/ostracize those that are not like-minded.

    If we wish to talk of what society actually does, that is what it actually does.
    why do you think that is different form what I said?

    I will face the former later, but I never said anything I said here is from me.
    True, meaning you can't possibly say it isn't a guess. You are simply regurgitating something you've been told, without questioning it in any way, and accepting it as fact despite no evidence to support it as such.



    Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
    False. Not only do we not take great efforts to preserve life, we often go out of our way to end it.

    Of course, thats irrelvent to your claim that there is a natural right to life.


    Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
    What are you talking about? Property doesn't exist in nature.


    Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.
    That's not a real definition, it's an imaginary one.

    Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



    They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.
    Each and every statement you made is demonstrably false.



    Well ok, tell me how I did then.
    Frankly, it was one of the most abysmal performances I have ever encountered in my life. While I did not expect accuracy, I also did not expect a near total lack of accuracy.

    The first two weren't even attempts at definitions and they both contained patently false clauses: 1. that we take effort to preserve life and 2. Property exists in nature.

    While the third attempted to be a definition, it was an imaginary definition that is not supported by actual definitions.

    If that is your best effort, we are in a sad state of affairs.

    Well you haven't provided such evidence.
    Just because you have ignored it doesn't mean it is not there.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •