No Right to Self Defense...

[molonlabetn]

No, it would not be a horrific violation of rights because obviously such people ceased to have rights, for whatever reason.

I doubt the individual action would be moral, however, but that's another issue.

By the same logic, then, could it not be argued that the branding, slavery, and execution of large numbers of any religious group because of a majority negative sentiment towards such a group is not un-just?

Morality is gauged in a similar fashion as rights, by popular expression. It could be argued that there is no such thing as natural morals, either. If a group of people decide that acts which I have described are appropriate, because the people whom they are oppressing have no rights, and it is not immoral to do so, according to them, by what standard can any mass persecution be argued against?

If you are correct, is there any proveable, universal basis for an outcry against any type of oppression, genocide, holocaust, slavery or otherwise... since it is done with popular/governmental consent? If so, what is it?

[The Rabbi]

You raise a good point. It is pretty much what the Nazis claimed: their actions only affected their own citizens so the rest of the world should butt out and mind their own business.

WW2 settled that question.

This was an issue that interested me in college: how do you prove something is immoral/wrong in the absence of appeal to divine religion? I concluded you cannot. And I became religious as a result of that.

[molonlabetn]

Okay then

I own firearms as part of my religious beliefs.

[Guest GT_Rat]

There's a natural instinct to have sex. Does that make rape a natural right?

The instinct is procreation. Rape is not about procreation. It's about domination and denegration. The person being raped does have the natural right to kill the rapist in self defense, though.

[The Rabbi]

The instinct is procreation.

Tell that to Barney Frank....

[Guest GT_Rat]

Well, nobody ever said procreation was the ONLY reason people had sex.

BTW, I had to google Barney Frank.

[molonlabetn]

I'm going off-topic with this, but, if procreation is the natural instinct of a sex-drive... wouldn't it follow that homosexuality is un-natural?

Rape, on the other hand, has little or nothing to do with sex... it is a deviance resulting from a desire to dominate or take something from someone else against their will. A selfish act... Procreation is a selfless act (in its pure form).

Even if rape was not illegal, it would still be prevented and retaliated against by those who truly refused to take part in it, and backed that choice up with force.

Gun control with the idea that it will prevent crime is similar to requiring people to have a permit to grow 'registered' genitalia, hoping to prevent rape. Imagining how that 'Assault ***** Ban' legislation would read is both humorous and sobering...

[Mike.357]

There's a natural instinct to have sex. Does that make rape a natural right?

I think you have now reached a new level with this.

Rape is not sex.

[The Rabbi]

Well, nobody ever said procreation was the ONLY reason people had sex.

BTW, I had to google Barney Frank.

Actually that's pretty much what you implied.

No one has an instinct to procreate (ok, maybe women do). But people commonly and normally have an instinct to have sex. Once they've done it the instinct abates. So merely having an instinct for something does not legitimate it as a right, which is what you originally implied.

OT: Did you hear about the new item at Fenway Park? It's called the Barney Frank. If you don't like it, you can stick it up your ass.

[molonlabetn]

...So merely having an instinct for something does not legitimate it as a right....

Going back to the religious point of view, however, acknowledging that an instinct is, by definition 'natural'... how can it be anything other than purposeful 'wiring' by the creator, intended to be exercised, under the purview of no other authority?

[The Rabbi]

Going back to the religious point of view, however, acknowledging that an instinct is, by definition 'natural'... how can it be anything other than purposeful 'wiring' by the creator, intended to be exercised, under the purview of no other authority?

People have all kinds of desires but that doesn't make them necessarily good. People have a desire for honor and self-aggrandizement but that doesnt mean giving in to those things is good.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Actually that's pretty much what you implied.

No one has an instinct to procreate (ok, maybe women do). But people commonly and normally have an instinct to have sex. Once they've done it the instinct abates. So merely having an instinct for something does not legitimate it as a right, which is what you originally implied.

OT: Did you hear about the new item at Fenway Park? It's called the Barney Frank. If you don't like it, you can stick it up your ass.

Sex is not the instinct. Yes people gratify themselves with sex but that is not instinctual. Both men and women have the instinctual urge to produce offspring. I know I did anyway. Otherwise in this age of birth control and the ability to have oneself neutered why bother with the responsibility, cost, and work of kids? Sex is the modus operandi and is fun without any urge to procreate. People eat when they aren't hungry too. It's instinctive to eat when you are hungry but why do so when you aren't hungry? Or are you saying nobody has a natural right to eat too? Does nobody have a right to live?

[The Rabbi]

Sex is not the instinct. Yes people gratify themselves with sex but that is not instinctual. Both men and women have the instinctual urge to produce offspring. I know I did anyway. Otherwise in this age of birth control and the ability to have oneself neutered why bother with the responsibility, cost, and work of kids? Sex is the modus operandi and is fun without any urge to procreate. People eat when they aren't hungry too. It's instinctive to eat when you are hungry but why do so when you aren't hungry? Or are you saying nobody has a natural right to eat too? Does nobody have a right to live?

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. As to the last question, the answer is no, there is no natural right to life that can be proven.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Just a natural instinct of self preservation..........

There is legal and illegal and then there is right and wrong. They are NOT always congruent.

Just because something is declared legal or illegal by the whims of society at that particular moment in history, does not mean it is necessarily RIGHT if declared legal or WRONG if declared illegal.

Some principles are more important than statutes.