Post by: Bob Noel on July 27, 2016, 09:49:53 AM
By "physically attacked", I'm including situations where you have credible belief that you are in danger of being physically attacked.
Post by: MarkZ on July 27, 2016, 11:08:48 AM
Post by: Bob Noel on July 27, 2016, 11:12:20 AM
Is this a serious question?
Yes.
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 27, 2016, 11:21:32 AM
Is this a serious question?We just have to wait until after August 10th for the other shoe to drop.
Post by: LevelWing on July 27, 2016, 11:23:43 AM
Post by: MarkZ on July 27, 2016, 11:26:44 AM
Yes.so you ask a question that any common sense person on this forum would answer in the affirmative?
What's your point?
Post by: JeffDG on July 27, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
so you ask a question that any common sense person on this forum would answer in the affirmative?There are plenty of people for whom common sense isn't so common. Although, in fairness, most of them are in Philly this week.
What's your point?
Post by: Bob Noel on July 27, 2016, 11:28:00 AM
so you ask a question that any common sense person on this forum would answer in the affirmative?
What's your point?
gee, I'm sorry if my question has disturbed you in some way.
Post by: MarkZ on July 27, 2016, 01:13:42 PM
But I'll bite, for the sake of conversation. I do not believe we have the right to defend ourselves if physically attacked.
:P
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 27, 2016, 01:24:02 PM
so you ask a question that any common sense person on this forum would answer in the affirmative?
What's your point?
Looks like someone disagrees.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 27, 2016, 02:36:31 PM
We need to look at this both philosophically, in terms of what rights mean, and practically, in terms of how guns function as tools.
If you say that a right exists but create obstacles to exercising that right, does it really exist?
If we agree that you have the right to self-defense but I allow you only martial arts and pepper spray, do you really have the right to self-defense? Maybe. If you’re in fighting fit shape and the winds are favorable. But what if you’re physically disabled, elderly or simply weaker than your attacker? Either you have a right--meaning you can effectively exercise it--or you don’t.
Weapons have been used throughout human history, but nothing compares to the handgun as a tool for self-defense. While shotguns and many rifles are more devastating physiologically, a handgun can be carried on one’s person almost effortlessly all the time, used one-handed by even the weakest and yet still dissuade all but the most determined assailant. No “common sense” gun law should ignore this reality. Concealed handgun carry is the logical expression of the right to effective self-defense."
http://onemoreinkling.blogspot.com/
Post by: asechrest on July 27, 2016, 02:52:41 PM
Post by: nddons on July 27, 2016, 03:10:59 PM
There are plenty of people for whom common sense isn't so common. Although, in fairness, most of them are in Philly this week.Bingo
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 27, 2016, 03:58:15 PM
I believe you have a right to defend yourself.Effectively?
Post by: bflynn on July 27, 2016, 05:24:54 PM
Post by: MarkZ on July 27, 2016, 05:35:01 PM
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 27, 2016, 05:53:58 PM
Effectively?That's like saying "try". Master Yoda says:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/72/ec/92/72ec92243f30edd0ff0c4acb4eec107f.jpg)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 27, 2016, 06:25:06 PM
I voted no. Exactly for the reason Becky mentioned.Because it might mean actually ... defending yourself and succeeding?
Post by: Number7 on July 27, 2016, 07:15:42 PM
Rugged individualists and producers have no issue with absolutes because some things are and the rest aren't.
Snowflakes find that such a potentially upsetting question is a trigger and a microagrpgression.
I believe that MarkZ just likes to whine.
Post by: MarkZ on July 27, 2016, 07:22:32 PM
Because it might mean actually ... defending yourself and succeeding?
I voted no for two reasons...I had absolutes and I know no one would vote no to this question. I like a good debate.
The other reason is, what is self defense? I'm curious what the OP meant by that, because my idea of self defense would result in total annihilation of my aggressor. By the quickest and most efficient means as well.
Post by: Dav8or on July 27, 2016, 07:59:30 PM
Wait... why don't the people in Hollywood like guns again?? Now I'm confused! :o ;)
Post by: asechrest on July 27, 2016, 10:15:46 PM
Effectively?
I gave this some thought, and I don't think so. In my opinion, the right to defend arises from the right to life. This right is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence as one of the unalienable rights for which government is created to protect. The right to efficiency of defense seems to me a different animal. Now we've lost the purity of a right, and we've come along to some subjective determination of what may be an efficient implementation of it.
The right to life, and therefore the right to self defense, are innate. But there is never a guarantee you won't be outmatched.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 27, 2016, 11:49:10 PM
I'm just wondering what the point is. This question is specific enough that I wonder if it's tied to a discussion from another thread.
But I'll bite, for the sake of conversation. I do not believe we have the right to defend ourselves if physically attacked.
:P
and yet you say "so you ask a question that any common sense person on this forum would answer in the affirmative? "
Post by: Anthony on July 28, 2016, 04:44:10 AM
Post by: Dav8or on July 28, 2016, 08:16:29 AM
Do we have a right to live?
This topic of rights and natural rights seems to pop up on this forum regularly from time to time. The answer always seems to come down to whether or not you believe in some super natural being that grants you rights when you are born. The "inalienable rights" always seem to have some root in religion and not the physical world.
To a religious person, rights are bestowed by their creator and to a non religious person, rights are bestowed by whatever government, ruler, or person that has ultimate power over others. These perspectives apply to all rights including the right to life itself.
Post by: asechrest on July 28, 2016, 08:33:07 AM
This topic of rights and natural rights seems to pop up on this forum regularly from time to time. The answer always seems to come down to whether or not you believe in some super natural being that grants you rights when you are born. The "inalienable rights" always seem to have some root in religion and not the physical world.
To a religious person, rights are bestowed by their creator and to a non religious person, rights are bestowed by whatever government, ruler, or person that has ultimate power over others. These perspectives apply to all rights including the right to life itself.
I don't think so. I'm agnostic and still believe I have a right to life, just by virtue of being a human being. I don't think government/society/etc. gives that right, but it does help protect it. This is a right inherent in every human. But I sort of get your point. When we get to these high-level discussions on rights, it's easy to lose definitional perspective or get into a chicken-or-the-egg discussion.
It's also difficult because we have such a wide array of things considered rights. Take, for example, the right to life and the right to vote. I consider these drastically different types of rights. The former is a natural right, inherent in the man/woman. The latter is a right that depends upon an a societal or governmental construct.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 28, 2016, 08:51:09 AM
I gave this some thought, and I don't think so. In my opinion, the right to defend arises from the right to life. This right is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence as one of the unalienable rights for which government is created to protect. The right to efficiency of defense seems to me a different animal. Now we've lost the purity of a right, and we've come along to some subjective determination of what may be an efficient implementation of it.Wise person knows there are no guarantees.
The right to life, and therefore the right to self defense, are innate. But there is never a guarantee you won't be outmatched.
Dude started bashing on the door of a home in my town a year or so ago, in the wee hours. Homeowner calls police, tries to talk the guy down, but before the police could arrive, Dude had managed to loosen the door in its frame with all his pounding. Homeowner goes and gets his gun, keeps trying to talk Dude down, but Dude breaks through. Homeowners wife and children are huddling in fear in back bedroom. Homeowner shoots Dude.
What say you, asechrest? Predictably, liberal media here paints homeowner as unjustified, hateful, etc. etc. Dude happened to be Hispanic, and homeowner happened to be white. Neither knew the other; Dude had been at a relative's home nearby getting drunk and high.
Post by: asechrest on July 28, 2016, 09:08:26 AM
Wise person knows there are no guarantees.
Dude started bashing on the door of a home in my town a year or so ago, in the wee hours. Homeowner calls police, tries to talk the guy down, but before the police could arrive, Dude had managed to loosen the door in its frame with all his pounding. Homeowner goes and gets his gun, keeps trying to talk Dude down, but Dude breaks through. Homeowners wife and children are huddling in fear in back bedroom. Homeowner shoots Dude.
What say you, asechrest? Predictably, liberal media here paints homeowner as unjustified, hateful, etc. etc. Dude happened to be Hispanic, and homeowner happened to be white. Neither knew the other; Dude had been at a relative's home nearby getting drunk and high.
A man can defend his home and family against the threat of danger. The homeowner is right and the "liberal media" is wrong in this instance. I'm good with the castle doctrine.
Post by: Dav8or on July 28, 2016, 09:51:13 AM
I don't think so. I'm agnostic and still believe I have a right to life, just by virtue of being a human being. I don't think government/society/etc. gives that right, but it does help protect it. This is a right inherent in every human. But I sort of get your point. When we get to these high-level discussions on rights, it's easy to lose definitional perspective or get into a chicken-or-the-egg discussion.
I find this kind of natural "right to life" argument difficult to understand as an agnostic. Since you are agnostic, you're basically saying, I am therefore I have a right to be. Still, what makes your life so special as to have this right? Our planet is cover with life, but we don't afford this right to life to 99.999999999999% of the life on this planet, only human life. Why?
We think nothing of cutting down trees that are in our way. We think nothing of poisoning insects and rodents because they bother us. We think nothing of killing animals and plants to eat and every now and then, the animals think nothing of killing us to eat. Humans evolved with a large brain, opposable thumbs and can walk on two legs. This has allowed us to be at the top of the food chain for now. I get that we are supreme over all other life forms on this planet and we can do as we like to the other species, but still, why does this outcome of evolution give us a special right to life over the other evolutionary creatures?
IMO, as best I can tell, all rights, including "natural" rights are constructs of our imaginations. They are concepts and beliefs that our big brains put together and the only thing that makes these rights real, is the ability to defend them if challenged.
Post by: bflynn on July 28, 2016, 01:13:20 PM
This topic of rights and natural rights seems to pop up on this forum regularly from time to time. The answer always seems to come down to whether or not you believe in some super natural being that grants you rights when you are born. The "inalienable rights" always seem to have some root in religion and not the physical world.
Actually, that isn't true. Inalienable rights are the ones that you just have. If you are attacked, nobody can prevent you from doing everything in your power to defend yourself. Nobody can prevent you from choosing a belief. Nobody can prevent you from speaking out. There is nothing religious about any of that. Inalienable rights exist because they do.
Post by: bflynn on July 28, 2016, 01:17:36 PM
"How you answer the question “Do you believe people have the right to defend themselves effectively?” is what matters.
Becky, you inserted the word effectively. That wasn't part of the question.
But even given your addition, is it still true? If I'm attacked by a wolf and I can only grab a stick, must I just give up and let the wolf maul me because I cannot "effectively" defend myself? Or should I try to beat the wolf with my stick and hope I get lucky and cause enough pain for it to rethink trying to eat me? Is a belief in success required before you're allowed to try?
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 28, 2016, 01:20:08 PM
Clearly we have the right to defend ourselves. Every movie and TV show tells us so. It's obvious that Hollywood believes that a fire arm is the best choice for defense as this is illustrated over and over again. Movies and television are art forms and art reflects life, so it can be deduced that the depictions in these dramas are true to life, ergo we have the right to defend ourselves and the best way to do that is with guns.
Wait... why don't the people in Hollywood like guns again?? Now I'm confused! :o ;)
You're using TV to form the basis of your argument??? Really?
Post by: bflynn on July 28, 2016, 01:20:41 PM
Homeowner goes and gets his gun, keeps trying to talk Dude down, but Dude breaks through. Homeowners wife and children are huddling in fear in back bedroom. Homeowner shoots Dude.
Depends on the state. In North Carolina, the Dude is dead and the homeowner doesn't even need wife and children huddling in the back bedroom. Someone who breaks into your house is legally deemed to intend harm and fear for your life is a legal fact. You may choose not to shoot them, but restraint is not required.
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 28, 2016, 01:25:00 PM
Becky, you inserted the word effectively. That wasn't part of the question.
But even given your addition, is it still true? If I'm attacked by a wolf and I can only grab a stick, must I just give up and let the wolf maul me because I cannot "effectively" defend myself? Or should I try to beat the wolf with my stick and hope I get lucky and cause enough pain for it to rethink trying to eat me? Is a belief in success required before you're allowed to try?
To borrow the analogy:
Does the 10 year old child in Ljlamjfl-istan have the right to pickup a rock and throw it at a tank rolling into his village?
Post by: asechrest on July 28, 2016, 02:05:08 PM
I find this kind of natural "right to life" argument difficult to understand as an agnostic. Since you are agnostic, you're basically saying, I am therefore I have a right to be. Still, what makes your life so special as to have this right? Our planet is cover with life, but we don't afford this right to life to 99.999999999999% of the life on this planet, only human life. Why?
We think nothing of cutting down trees that are in our way. We think nothing of poisoning insects and rodents because they bother us. We think nothing of killing animals and plants to eat and every now and then, the animals think nothing of killing us to eat. Humans evolved with a large brain, opposable thumbs and can walk on two legs. This has allowed us to be at the top of the food chain for now. I get that we are supreme over all other life forms on this planet and we can do as we like to the other species, but still, why does this outcome of evolution give us a special right to life over the other evolutionary creatures?
IMO, as best I can tell, all rights, including "natural" rights are constructs of our imaginations. They are concepts and beliefs that our big brains put together and the only thing that makes these rights real, is the ability to defend them if challenged.
Yes, they are concepts that we recognize as humans. They are "real" because we say so. We acknowledge the right to our own lives, and we build government and civilization and laws to help protect it. I am not suggesting that a right to life is a fundamental concept of a humanity-less universe, though, and as an agnostic I don't acknowledge a higher being as having bestowed it upon humanity.
Animals do not have a right to life in the same way we do, at least not until they communicate to us that they expect their right to life be acknowledged and agree to the reciprocal and moral responsibilities demanded by joining a civilization that protects it. That probably sounds harsh if you're an animal but it is true.
Post by: Kristin on July 28, 2016, 02:09:29 PM
Post by: Number7 on July 28, 2016, 04:03:50 PM
When progressives give up their insane need to pretend slavery of blacks by Muslims is not happening, then the court of public opinion will work to correct this transgressin against natural rights.
Post by: bflynn on July 28, 2016, 05:33:13 PM
Similarly the rights of speech, expression, self defense, pursuit of betterment and the right to freely move around are natural human rights. Nobody has to approve them and you cannot justly be denied them, you can only be punished for performing them.
Post by: Dav8or on July 28, 2016, 06:18:26 PM
You're using TV to form the basis of your argument??? Really?
Sure, why not? I was raised on TV and got all my core values and insight on the human animal from John Wayne, Steve McGarret and Hawkeye Pierce. Well, that and Looney Tune cartoons and the Twilight Zone. ;)
Post by: Dav8or on July 28, 2016, 06:31:29 PM
Yes, they are concepts that we recognize as humans. They are "real" because we say so. We acknowledge the right to our own lives, and we build government and civilization and laws to help protect it. I am not suggesting that a right to life is a fundamental concept of a humanity-less universe, though, and as an agnostic I don't acknowledge a higher being as having bestowed it upon humanity.
Animals do not have a right to life in the same way we do, at least not until they communicate to us that they expect their right to life be acknowledged and agree to the reciprocal and moral responsibilities demanded by joining a civilization that protects it. That probably sounds harsh if you're an animal but it is true.
This is the slippery slope we have suffered from. Historically, all that has been required to authorize a genocide of another group of humans is to argue that they are somehow less than civilized, or human and more like animals. Being animals and not civilized humans, they get no right to life. It has taken centuries to convince everybody that all humans are the same here on earth and still many don't believe it.
I get the first bit though. Basically you're saying human rights, including the right to life is basically a human tradition that has been supported by various civilizations that recognize those rights. In a practical sense, I agree with you and this is how it has been for much of the world though out some periods of time. However it is by no means universal or recognized everywhere throughout history.
Post by: Dav8or on July 28, 2016, 06:40:29 PM
Natural rights are real because they are real. Nobody can control what you believe in. It doesn't matter whether or not it is acknowledged, recognized or even identified. You can believe what you want to believe. That is the natural right to religious belief.
Similarly the rights of speech, expression, self defense, pursuit of betterment and the right to freely move around are natural human rights. Nobody has to approve them and you cannot justly be denied them, you can only be punished for performing them.
These are natural human behaviors, but are they rights? A right implies some sort of order of law, or recognized permission by a group of people. Since speech, expression, self defense, pursuit of betterment, freedom of movement and even life itself has been denied to millions of people by other people over the ages, I would argue that you describe behaviors, or even natural desires, but not a right.
Post by: asechrest on July 28, 2016, 10:06:58 PM
This is the slippery slope we have suffered from. Historically, all that has been required to authorize a genocide of another group of humans is to argue that they are somehow less than civilized, or human and more like animals. Being animals and not civilized humans, they get no right to life. It has taken centuries to convince everybody that all humans are the same here on earth and still many don't believe it.
I get the first bit though. Basically you're saying human rights, including the right to life is basically a human tradition that has been supported by various civilizations that recognize those rights. In a practical sense, I agree with you and this is how it has been for much of the world though out some periods of time. However it is by no means universal or recognized everywhere throughout history.
There is a bright line between human and animal. Genocide is a tragedy but not a slide down a slippery slope.
Post by: nddons on July 29, 2016, 05:12:29 AM
These are natural human behaviors, but are they rights? A right implies some sort of order of law, or recognized permission by a group of people. Since speech, expression, self defense, pursuit of betterment, freedom of movement and even life itself has been denied to millions of people by other people over the ages, I would argue that you describe behaviors, or even natural desires, but not a right.That's kind of sick. Just because millions were exterminated by the Nazis in the 1940s does not mean that they had no "right" to life.
Post by: Dav8or on July 29, 2016, 08:48:31 AM
That's kind of sick. Just because millions were exterminated by the Nazis in the 1940s does not mean that they had no "right" to life.
If you say so, but I'm just pointing out the observable world as it is. I didn't want to go all Godwin in this thread, but since you went there, I'll use your example.
The Nazis controlled much of Europe and in those times, they did not recognize the Jew's right to life. They had the power and they used it. In effect, in Germany at that time, the Jews had no right to life. Now a larger subset of humans in the world at the time did recognize the Jew's right to life and they fought to support that right. A superior being, passing by in his Foo Fighter during WWII might have looked down at that time and saw really no difference between the humans and all the other animals in the jungle and could have said, "Zap them all, this place will make a great resort spot and all these indigenous animals are in the way.", not recognizing our claim to a "right to life" anymore than we think the birds in the trees have a right to life.
Our rights are beliefs and concepts that are just recognized by a majority and enforced by that majority. There have been many times in the course of history besides the Nazis where a majority wielding power has not recognized any particular right upon a weaker minority. After all, Jeff's SMOD could come and kill us all because clearly the cosmos doesn't recognize our right to life, or any other right.
Post by: Dav8or on July 29, 2016, 08:57:39 AM
There is a bright line between human and animal. Genocide is a tragedy but not a slide down a slippery slope.
And in your view, how do those committing genocide typically justify that taking of life to their members? History has shown, that often the rational is that those that are to die, are inferior and therefore not any different than eradicating an invasive species in an animal habitat. Most people find killing very distasteful and so reasoning must be given to get them over the emotional hump and get them to swing the sword, pull the trigger, drop the bomb, set the fire, release the gas, etc.
The good news is, as the world becomes more connected and more educated, a universal right to life for all humans is starting to become more widely recognized and defended.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 29, 2016, 09:09:16 AM
Post by: Mase on July 29, 2016, 09:53:28 AM
A superior being, passing by in his Foo Fighter during WWII might have looked down at that time and saw really no difference between the humans and all the other animals in the jungle and could have said, "Zap them all, this place will make a great resort spot and all these indigenous animals are in the way."
One would hope that any species advanced enough to effect interplanetary travel would recognize the Prime Directive.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 29, 2016, 10:03:03 AM
One would hope that any species advanced enough to effect interplanetary travel would recognize the Prime Directive.
and also the species evolve (or die out on their own)
Post by: asechrest on July 29, 2016, 10:10:48 AM
And in your view, how do those committing genocide typically justify that taking of life to their members? History has shown, that often the rational is that those that are to die, are inferior and therefore not any different than eradicating an invasive species in an animal habitat. Most people find killing very distasteful and so reasoning must be given to get them over the emotional hump and get them to swing the sword, pull the trigger, drop the bomb, set the fire, release the gas, etc.
The good news is, as the world becomes more connected and more educated, a universal right to life for all humans is starting to become more widely recognized and defended.
I think you're just stating reality, rather than making the case against inalienable rights. As humans existing on earth in civilizations, we recognize certain inalienable rights inherent in our existence, and many of us endeavor to protect them. As history shows, that doesn't prevent the universe, mother nature, or even other people from infringing upon those rights.
But I think we're just talking around each other. If you don't believe in a higher power, and your contention is that humans chose to recognize these rights, then I agree. I don't believe a god or gods bestowed them upon us, and I don't believe rights are a fundamental property of the universe. I do believe they are a fundamental requirement for successful human civilization, however.
Post by: bflynn on July 29, 2016, 11:26:56 AM
These are natural human behaviors, but are they rights?
Stop me from talking. Stop me from believing. Stop me from trying to defend myself.
That is why they are rights.
Post by: asechrest on July 29, 2016, 12:09:53 PM
Stop me from talking. Stop me from believing. Stop me from trying to defend myself.
That is why they are rights.
I'll play devil's advocate to my own thoughts: I can stop you from doing two of those. What Dave I think is saying is that natural rights are not some fundamental fabric of the cosmos. They arose out of our human experience and civilizations, and many of us agreed to protect them as fundamental rights of any human. So in a sense, it's not entirely off-the-mark to say that we "created" these rights.
You might quibble with that if you're religious and believe they were handed down from on high, but, frankly, I don't have a problem with our decision to declare a certain set of things as fundamental to the human race, and ones in which we endeavor to protect as a group of beings.
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 29, 2016, 12:21:54 PM
One would hope that any species advanced enough to effect interplanetary travel would recognize the Prime Directive.Many mistakes were made before the need for the PD was acknowledged.
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 29, 2016, 12:26:20 PM
I think you're just stating reality, rather than making the case against inalienable rights. As humans existing on earth in civilizations, we recognize certain inalienable rights inherent in our existence, and many of us endeavor to protect them. As history shows, that doesn't prevent the universe, mother nature, or even other people from infringing upon those rights.
But I think we're just talking around each other. If you don't believe in a higher power, and your contention is that humans chose to recognize these rights, then I agree. I don't believe a god or gods bestowed them upon us, and I don't believe rights are a fundamental property of the universe. I do believe they are a fundamental requirement for successful human civilization, however.
I think the right to live is only a right provided you have the ability to defend or thwart threats to life. Similarly, just as you have the right to create a forest fire (for example), I have the right to create a water hose. From there it's a battle of who's creation is more powerful. You can move your fire to a place where it become outside the range of my logistics to bring water and thereby you consume more forest to where I cannot supply enough water to put it out. I also have the right to seed clouds to cause rain to put out your fire. Perhaps you have a right to burn a hole in the ozone to cause the sun to reignite the flames and reduce the humidity levels to block the formation of clouds over the forest.....this can go ad infinitum.
And so it is with life. We create and counter-create. In other words, Give life and cause death.
Post by: asechrest on July 29, 2016, 12:42:07 PM
Ah yes, the inherent natural right to set and put out fires. :P
Post by: asechrest on July 29, 2016, 12:44:42 PM
I think the right to live is only a right provided you have the ability to defend or thwart threats to life.
Fortunately, this is not true. We deem the rights to exist whether you can physically defend yourself or not.
Post by: JeffDG on July 29, 2016, 12:51:24 PM
These are natural human behaviors, but are they rights? A right implies some sort of order of law, or recognized permission by a group of people. Since speech, expression, self defense, pursuit of betterment, freedom of movement and even life itself has been denied to millions of people by other people over the ages, I would argue that you describe behaviors, or even natural desires, but not a right.Um...no.
Rights exist beyond the "permission by a group of people". The people of the DPRK have the right to freedom of speech, even if their government chooses to not recognize that right and works to actively suppress it, it doesn't change the fact that the right exists.
Post by: Mase on July 29, 2016, 01:15:36 PM
Many mistakes were made before the need for the PD was acknowledged.
True that.
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 29, 2016, 01:37:11 PM
Fortunately, this is not true. We deem the rights to exist whether you can physically defend yourself or not.
You're talking in terms of Constitutional Law and I'm talking in terms of reality.
Post by: asechrest on July 29, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
You're talking in terms of Constitutional Law and I'm talking in terms of reality.
No, I'm not. You're saying the right to life only exists if you have the ability to defend yourself. That's not the case, and shouldn't be the case. Think about what it would mean if we declared people had a right to life unless we could kick their asses.
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 30, 2016, 03:59:23 AM
No, I'm not. You're saying the right to life only exists if you have the ability to defend yourself. That's not the case, and shouldn't be the case. Think about what it would mean if we declared people had a right to life unless we could kick their asses.
It's not just people that makes a threat to life. There are natural and environmental threats. There is also other life that defends their life and rights to live. Take a grasshopper for example- it has a right to life. But it's not smart enough to prepare and come out of the cold and it pays for that with its life. Although I can spray my lawn with insecticide, it would be immoral to do so to the planet but grasshoppers can't stop humans from doing so. If we did so, it would be at our own peril, thereby reducing our own survival potential.
Post by: asechrest on July 30, 2016, 05:26:01 AM
It's not just people that makes a threat to life. There are natural and environmental threats. There is also other life that defends their life and rights to live. Take a grasshopper for example- it has a right to life. But it's not smart enough to prepare and come out of the cold and it pays for that with its life. Although I can spray my lawn with insecticide, it would be immoral to do so to the planet but grasshoppers can't stop humans from doing so. If we did so, it would be at our own peril, thereby reducing our own survival potential.
I've lost your point. Grasshoppers do not have a right to life™.
Post by: Mase on July 30, 2016, 08:59:59 AM
Post by: Dav8or on July 30, 2016, 09:34:19 AM
Um...no.
Rights exist beyond the "permission by a group of people". The people of the DPRK have the right to freedom of speech, even if their government chooses to not recognize that right and works to actively suppress it, it doesn't change the fact that the right exists.
See that's where you're not getting what I'm saying. We, a larger sub set of humans recognize the right to free speech that is being denied to those living in the DPRK, but if the whole world were ruled by the DPRK, then they could say we have no right to free speech and if they have the power to enforce that, it would be so. If a group of rebels had the power to resist their decree, then for those rebels they would have the right to free speech.
Rights just come down to who has the power. Our recognition of the people's right to free speech in the DPRK doesn't actually give it to them. It would take a greater power, us attacking and removing the government of the DPRK to give it to them.
Post by: bflynn on July 30, 2016, 08:16:07 PM
If they do not punish you, they are not granting a "right", they are restraining themselves. The two are not equivilent.
Post by: Anthony on July 30, 2016, 10:51:21 PM
They cannot stop you from exercising your free speech. You are a thinking human and can say what you choose. They can punish you for doing it and they can use fear to convince you to cooperate but they cannot remove your right to speech.
If they do not punish you, they are not granting a "right", they are restraining themselves. The two are not equivilent.
we no longer have a right to free speech. It is hate speech now.
Post by: LevelWing on July 31, 2016, 02:44:12 AM
Rights just come down to who has the power. Our recognition of the people's right to free speech in the DPRK doesn't actually give it to them. It would take a greater power, us attacking and removing the government of the DPRK to give it to them.I think you're confusing natural rights and the ability to exercise them. Freedom of speech is not granted by the government, it is a natural right given to you by your creator. The government's job is to protect that right. In your example of the DPRK, that right still exists but the government is suppressing that right, and they have the people and the guns to enforce it.
The U.S. Constitution is not a rights granting document, it is a government limiting document.
Post by: nddons on July 31, 2016, 05:07:23 AM
See that's where you're not getting what I'm saying. We, a larger sub set of humans recognize the right to free speech that is being denied to those living in the DPRK, but if the whole world were ruled by the DPRK, then they could say we have no right to free speech and if they have the power to enforce that, it would be so. If a group of rebels had the power to resist their decree, then for those rebels they would have the right to free speech.I think you have a very, very distorted view of what constitutes a natural right.
Rights just come down to who has the power. Our recognition of the people's right to free speech in the DPRK doesn't actually give it to them. It would take a greater power, us attacking and removing the government of the DPRK to give it to them.
And that's quite sad, because your mentality is what is being used by despots, including our government, to deny people of their natural rights.
Post by: Dav8or on July 31, 2016, 10:39:44 AM
They cannot stop you from exercising your free speech. You are a thinking human and can say what you choose. They can punish you for doing it and they can use fear to convince you to cooperate but they cannot remove your right to speech.
If they do not punish you, they are not granting a "right", they are restraining themselves. The two are not equivilent.
Maybe the place to start is the definition of the word right. Here is what I found from a legal site.
Quote
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.
The key here is "accepted by civilized societies". This is what I've been saying. A group of people recognize and accept a right. Obviously uncivilized societies do not accept these rights. To me, a right, the word right, implies a legal standing. Breathing, thinking, herring, seeing and speaking are human traits, characteristics and behaviors.
Post by: Mase on July 31, 2016, 10:55:18 AM
Breathing, thinking, herring,
I'll have mine pickled, please. Or lightly smoked in a tin.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 31, 2016, 11:02:34 AM
Maybe the place to start is the definition of the word right. Here is what I found from a legal site.
The key here is "accepted by civilized societies". This is what I've been saying. A group of people recognize and accept a right. Obviously uncivilized societies do not accept these rights. To me, a right, the word right, implies a legal standing. Breathing, thinking, herring, seeing and speaking are human traits, characteristics and behaviors.
to the contrary, the key is "from a legal site"
Post by: Dav8or on July 31, 2016, 01:59:32 PM
I think you have a very, very distorted view of what constitutes a natural right.
And that's quite sad, because your mentality is what is being used by despots, including our government, to deny people of their natural rights.
But wait!! Many here are saying that natural rights can't be denied.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 31, 2016, 03:12:31 PM
But wait!! Many here are saying that natural rights can't be denied.
natural rights can't be infringed?
Post by: Dav8or on July 31, 2016, 03:50:41 PM
natural rights can't be infringed?
Sure, I think so, but I said denied.
Post by: asechrest on July 31, 2016, 05:35:27 PM
But wait!! Many here are saying that natural rights can't be denied.
Only one person is saying that (bflynn), and he's technically mistaken, but I get his point.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 31, 2016, 06:19:19 PM
Sure, I think so, but I said denied.
what's the distinction?
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 01, 2016, 07:39:39 AM
The Constitution is a current document to attempts to enshrine in government doctrine the idea of inalienable rights and the preservation of said rights.
Prior to this one only had the rights that could be defended.
Post by: nddons on August 01, 2016, 09:12:23 AM
But wait!! Many here are saying that natural rights can't be denied.Are you being obstinate for fun, or do you still not get the rights thing?
Any law infringing on natural rights is either an illegal law, an unconstitutional law, or a violation of human or natural rights, depending on the circumstances. Such rights don't cease to exist once a despot choses to deny them, by law or by force.
Post by: bflynn on August 01, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
Maybe the place to start is the definition of the word right. Here is what I found from a legal site.
The key here is "accepted by civilized societies". This is what I've been saying. A group of people recognize and accept a right. Obviously uncivilized societies do not accept these rights. To me, a right, the word right, implies a legal standing. Breathing, thinking, herring, seeing and speaking are human traits, characteristics and behaviors.
I don't think we agree on the nature of natural rights so we will not agree on the ability to abridge them. They do not have to be accepted by civilized societies because they are natural, they come for your existence, they exist before societies are formed. If you were the only person in the entire world, there would be no civilized society to endorse your rights, but you would still have the right to speak, the right to believe and the right to self defense, correct?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on August 01, 2016, 09:30:10 AM
The original question "Is self defense a right" could be debated endlessly but in the end, it is indeed a right. Otherwise those who would attack, steal, kill, etc. would be curtailed in no meaningful way from such activities.
There is no safe space. There is only learning how the world works, coping with it the best way we can as a society, and defending our own lives and families in EFFECTIVE ways.
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 01, 2016, 09:34:39 AM
A right really isn't meaningful unless it is defended. Groups of people have to agree on what rights are defendable. In America we have had such consensus for many generations. When smaller groups push against larger groups for a change in what is considered a right (women and voting, blacks and various freedoms, gays and marriage), there are, appropriately, many arguments made and lo, laws are changed, usually by vote of the majority, who have become convinced that yes, the right being asked for is indeed a right.
The original question "Is self defense a right" could be debated endlessly but in the end, it is indeed a right. Otherwise those who would attack, steal, kill, etc. would be curtailed in no meaningful way from such activities.
There is no safe space. There is only learning how the world works, coping with it the best way we can as a society, and defending our own lives and families in EFFECTIVE ways.
Becky
Why is effect such a salient part of your argument? Either you defend yourself or you do not. If I hit you in the face, it's because you failed to defend against the attack (not that I would attack you, but just to illustrate a point). If I throw a punch and you put up a block but the block is bypassed or overpowered, you still have failed to defend yourself. If you move out of the way, you have defended against the punch. Bruce Lee said, "Best defense, no be there" (...or was that Mister Miyagi???).
Post by: bflynn on August 01, 2016, 09:37:56 AM
Only one person is saying that (bflynn), and he's technically mistaken, but I get his point.
That's funny. I would have said that only one person (Dav8or) is denying that natural rights exist and he's just flat out mistaken.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on August 01, 2016, 09:48:05 AM
Becky
Why is effect such a salient part of your argument? Either you defend yourself or you do not. If I hit you in the face, it's because you failed to defend against the attack (not that I would attack you, but just to illustrate a point). If I throw a punch and you put up a block but the block is bypassed or overpowered, you still have failed to defend yourself. If you move out of the way, you have defended against the punch. Bruce Lee said, "Best defense, no be there" (...or was that Mister Miyagi???).
My focus on the right to EFFECTIVE self defense is based on this article. I think there is a lot of good sense in there. It is a defense of concealed carry.
http://onemoreinkling.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-you-may-support-concealed-carry-and.html
This was the reality of Jim Crow laws in the South. Southern blacks had the right to vote on paper, granted by the 15th Amendment, but not in practice. Sure, you can vote, the Mississippi election judge might say, just as soon as you show me the deed to your land. Or take this reading test. Or pay your poll tax.
Apply that to the right of self-defense. If we agree that you have the right to self-defense but I allow you only martial arts and pepper spray, do you really have the right to self-defense? Maybe. If you’re in fighting fit shape and the winds are favorable. But what if you’re physically disabled, elderly or simply weaker than your attacker? Either you have a right--meaning you can effectively exercise it--or you don’t.
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 01, 2016, 09:59:06 AM
I believe in the right to gun ownership for responsible citizens. I believe that common interests should allow us to deicide the definition of responsible. I do not want anyone around me or my family with a concealed weapon, but I don't get to make that choice sometimes.
I know how to employ weapons of many types. I'll leave it there...
I don't own any firearms. I'll leave it there...
I wish that more people subscribed to my views. All I can do is advocate.
Post by: nddons on August 01, 2016, 10:22:10 AM
Thank you for posting that.That is the slippery slope I considered in the other thread.
I believe in the right to gun ownership for responsible citizens. I believe that common interests should allow us to deicide the definition of responsible. I do not want anyone around me or my family with a concealed weapon, but I don't get to make that choice sometimes.
I know how to employ weapons of many types. I'll leave it there...
I don't own any firearms. I'll leave it there...
I wish that more people subscribed to my views. All I can do is advocate.
Who gets to determine who is a "responsible citizen"? Congress? The unelected Supremes? Your local mayor? You?
I think a fair bright line is "lawful."
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 01, 2016, 11:49:57 AM
That is the slippery slope I considered in the other thread.
Who gets to determine who is a "responsible citizen"? Congress? The unelected Supremes? Your local mayor? You?
I think a fair bright line is "lawful."
Simple. We employ the representative government to do what it was erected to do, fulfill the will of the people. We get to define what is reasonable and then have government enforce the standard.
Post by: nddons on August 01, 2016, 12:39:03 PM
Simple. We employ the representative government to do what it was erected to do, fulfill the will of the people. We get to define what is reasonable and then have government enforce the standard.Not so simple. That would imply someone may or not be a "responsible citizen" depending upon the electoral cycle.
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 01, 2016, 12:41:26 PM
Not so simple. That would imply someone may or not be a "responsible citizen" depending upon the electoral cycle.I acknowledge the definition may evolve over time and that's fine. But it's a workable solution.
Post by: nddons on August 01, 2016, 01:20:15 PM
I acknowledge the definition may evolve over time and that's fine. But it's a workable solution.Just like a "living Constitution", right?
Post by: bflynn on August 01, 2016, 01:43:28 PM
I acknowledge the definition may evolve over time and that's fine. But it's a workable solution.
But you don't care because your goal is to have everyone disarmed. So an evolved definition is not only acceptable, it's desirable.
High marks on the compassion scale there.
Post by: asechrest on August 02, 2016, 07:16:37 AM
The world for the last several thousand years has not respected natural rights. There have always been tyranny and suppression of these inalienable rights.
The Constitution is a current document to attempts to enshrine in government doctrine the idea of inalienable rights and the preservation of said rights.
Prior to this one only had the rights that could be defended.
If you intend to assert that natural rights are only a recent recognition, you are mistaken.
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 02, 2016, 09:22:26 AM
If you intend to assert that natural rights are only a recent recognition, you are mistaken.
I'd be eagerly interested in your proof. Please provide!!!
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 02, 2016, 09:24:12 AM
But you don't care because your goal is to have everyone disarmed. So an evolved definition is not only acceptable, it's desirable.Not quite. I don't believe in a society where there are NO arms. But my religious theology forbids me to carry any on my person or keep them in my home. Everything else is fair game.
High marks on the compassion scale there.
Post by: asechrest on August 02, 2016, 09:40:15 AM
I'd be eagerly interested in your proof. Please provide!!!
http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero
Post by: nddons on August 02, 2016, 03:21:23 PM
http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/ciceroExcellent cite!
Post by: Anthony on August 04, 2016, 12:21:10 PM
The agenda is to disarm the common man so they can be more easily controlled.
Post by: nddons on August 04, 2016, 12:56:30 PM
To voluntarily allow oneself to get slaughtered is ridiculous, and against human nature. It is immoral, and illogical. Politicians, celebrities, and the rich have ARMED body guards. Most of us can not afford that so some carry firearms LEGALLY to protect themselves. The media suppresses stories where legally armed men, and women thwart violent harm to them, and their families using their firearms. Most of the time a criminal just has to see a gun, and then runs away with no shots fired. That is the best outcome, but again they usually don't get reported.You're right, those events don't usually get reported in crime records, yet they exist nonetheless.
The agenda is to disarm the common man so they can be more easily controlled.
Criminologist Gary Kleck published a paper and survey where he concluded that approximately 2.5 million times per year firearms are used defensively, wherein the vast majority of instances the weapon is never fired.
Post by: Jaybird180 on August 05, 2016, 06:47:45 AM
http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero
Thank you for the citation.
Quote
Cicero has made a monumental contribution to the tradition of natural law and natural rights in the West. While revering and learning from his great Greek predecessors in the tradition of moral and political philosophy as well as from the schools of philosophy in his own time, he brings forward in a more explicit way the language of natural law, thus developing the notion of “following nature” or of what is “right according to nature.” He points quite unambiguously to a divine source for this law and anticipates later developments of the notion of conscience by stressing that all humankind have a sense of the right within them, seeds needing nourishing and guidance to flourish as mature reason. This maturing entails reason being brought to work upon the gift of our inclinations and thus to formulate the virtues and the very law of nature. This law then is to be the standard shaping the commonalities in the laws of nations and against which one can judge the rightness of any specific civil laws and the edicts and rulings of magistrates.
Cicero was a philosopher and seems a prolific writer. I didn't see in the article if his ideals were enshrined into law, though it seems they have been incorporated into social norms that we still see today.