Right versus Priviledge

[Mark@Sea]

In the last 100 years

Soviet Union... 20 million

Peoples Republic of China... 65 million

North Korea... 2 million

Cambodia... 2 million

Vietnam... 1 million

Eastern Europe... 1 to 2 million

Afghanistan... 1.5 million

What do these states have in common? Anyone?

A) Christianity

Islam

C) Buddhism

D) Communism

11-13th century, 9 million dead (estimated). Only half or 4.5 million were muslim. Those were christians doing most of the heinous war crime stuff like packing mosques full of townspeople and burning them down

How many 'estimated' people did the muslims kill in that war? You seem to be implying that number to be zero...

[The Rabbi]

In all of the examples above I pointed to the fact that one principle is being vindicated here, and that it is being vindicated by observance of animal instinct: life, and the defense and pursuit thereof, is inherently good. If each being were to act with a wish for death, or self-destruction, life would, obviously, take a serious blow. The urge to life and it's defense is natural and good, unless you'd care to argue that the urge toward self-destruction is good.

I truly think you have no command of English.

Your stated principle is "life is inherently good." Your proof is that animals have a self-preservation instinct.

You haven't vindicated it for the simple reason no one has attacked it.

Further if life is inherently good then you in fact have NO right of self defense. The BG's life is inherently good, just as yours is.

Therefore you are not justified in taking his, unless you know for certain that he will take yours.

And you don't. You cannot know what is in his mind or how the situation will turn out.

Do you want to argue that some life is inherently good and other life isnt? Let's see you make that argument.

Congratulations: you have proven the opposite of what you set out to prove.

Since you believe you do not have a right of self defense then please send your guns to me. Wouldn't want you to infringe on some BG's rights.

[Mark@Sea]

Toss up between Christians and Chinese.

Yeah, Rabbi, communists are noted for their deeply held faith in Christianity. Want to go over those numbers again?

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php

Communist Body Count: 149,469,610

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

In the last 100 years

Soviet Union... 20 million

Peoples Republic of China... 65 million

North Korea... 2 million

Cambodia... 2 million

Vietnam... 1 million

Eastern Europe... 1 to 2 million

Afghanistan... 1.5 million

What do these states have in common? Anyone?

A) Christianity

Islam

C) Buddhism

D) Communism

How many 'estimated' people did the muslims kill in that war? You seem to be implying that number to be zero...

I know! I know! Atheist Marxism?

I truly think you have no command of English.

Your stated principle is "life is inherently good." Your proof is that animals have a self-preservation instinct.

Keep banging your head against the wall. Maybe it'll knock some sense in to you. My stated principle is (and WAS!!!) that the urge to LIFE, as opposed to DEATH, is inherently good. Do you not agree that most species would fair poorly if this were not true? Therefore, self-defense, or, more plainly, the attempt of the individual to protect his or her life through the resistance of physical insult, is inherently good and just. How many more times can I rephrase this? Would it help if I used big plastic letters stuck to a RomperRoom board with magnets?

You haven't vindicated it for the simple reason no one has attacked it.

Every time I've clearly stated that self-defense is a natural right endowed by the universe, someone has come along to say "nope. the right to self-defense doesn't exist unless the government says so." You're thick, bud.

Further if life is inherently good then you in fact have NO right of self defense. The BG's life is inherently good, just as yours is.

I was waiting for this. I notice that you don't use the lion-and-the-zebra scenario I posted earlier. You know why? Because then you'd have to face the value judgment issue, which is uniquely human. In this case, the BG has forsaken his right to defend himself. He has transgressed against another such that his right to self-defense has left him. Once he undertook to engage in criminal activity against another person, he forsook his right. When engaging in criminal activity, all action from that point on is offensive, not defensive. See "castle doctrine". This, however, is a uniquely human situation, and, as I've stated earlier, not ANY AND ALL facts of non-human animal behavior are comparable to ours.

Again, it is neither good nor evil that a lion takes a zebra. If, however, I were to stalk and kill you for the purposes of taking your wallet, it would be evil. We, as humans, have adopted an economy of trade/barter by which we have eliminated the need for us to kill one another to gain food. Should someone wish to violate the principles of this structure, then they forsake their right to have me hold up my end of the bargain--namely, the fact that I agreed not to offend their person with 00 buck without cause. The fact that this structure exists as a human construct does not negate the fact that it is born of natural, inherent, universal truths. The right to self-defense is included among those truths, whether or not the District of Columbia happens to recognize it.

Therefore you are not justified in taking his, unless you know for certain that he will take yours.

Nope. I am absolutely justified in taking his life because he has raised my level of threat such that I may act first in self-defense. If I pull the trigger, it is because his entire course of action has been a transgression against me. Justifiable self-defense may very well be pre-emptive. Unless you'd like to argue otherwise.

And you don't. You cannot know what is in his mind or how the situation will turn out.

I know that his actions have raised my sense of threat. I don't have to know his mind. Action follows being, and I can plainly sense his actions. I don't have to know how the situation will turn out. The mere threat is enough to warrant action. At least our law in Tennessee still recognizes this much.

Do you want to argue that some life is inherently good and other life isnt?

What? You continue to completely mis-read my posts. The urge to life is inherently good.

Let's see you make that argument.

Congratulations: you have proven the opposite of what you set out to prove.

You really think you're dealing with a newbie, don't you?

[The Rabbi]

You keep shifting your argument.

So now there is a right to self defense because life is inherently good. But not all life is inherently good. Some actions negate the goodness of life.

Where you get all this is beyond me. You sure haven't defended even the first principle. You say life is inherently good because there is a instinct for self preservation. By that token stealing when I need something is good too because it is part of self preservation. Animals do so all the time.

So you still have not gotten out of the dilemma that if life is inherently good then you have no right to self defense. If you have a right of self defense then your life takes precedence over someone else's. But you don't explain how you know this to be the case. Does your property take precedence over someone else's life? In TX it does. I personally don't have a problem with that. But on your view that would be unjustifiable.

You really think you're dealing with a newbie, don't you?

No. If your arguments approached the quality of newbie's we would be having a more productive discussion.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

You keep shifting your argument.

So now there is a right to self defense because life is inherently good. But not all life is inherently good. Some actions negate the goodness of life.

Where you get all this is beyond me. You sure haven't defended even the first principle. You say life is inherently good because there is a instinct for self preservation. By that token stealing when I need something is good too because it is part of self preservation. Animals do so all the time.

So you still have not gotten out of the dilemma that if life is inherently good then you have no right to self defense. If you have a right of self defense then your life takes precedence over someone else's. But you don't explain how you know this to be the case. Does your property take precedence over someone else's life? In TX it does. I personally don't have a problem with that. But on your view that would be unjustifiable.

No. If your arguments approached the quality of newbie's we would be having a more productive discussion.

I'll leave you to your ignorance and simply hope that you NEVER have any affect on the will of another human being.

[The Rabbi]

I'll leave you to your ignorance and simply hope that you NEVER have any affect on the will of another human being.

Vain hopes, I'm afraid. Just read the threads here.

Fortunately an inability to reason is no bar to higher attainment in this country. You'll do just fine.

So I am still waiting for someone to offer proof that human rights actually exist independent of society's constructs of them.

[Fallguy]

When somebody finally concedes they were wrong and the other guy was right...will you please PM me so I won't have to keep checking the thread everyday to see if there is a winner yet.

[The Rabbi]

Ill concede that anyone reading this with a modicum of sense will see that Abominable's alleged argument has less hope of success than Hillary's presidential campaign. He seems to think that instinct is a substitute for jurisprudence. His proofs consist of spewing garbage.

We've probably beaten this as far as it can be beaten. I wouldn't mind seeing it closed.

[Guest Mugster]

That's what it is. A right denied. But why is that view "naive"?

Because, outside of the US, there is no concept of "rights" as we speak about it. We can sit here and argue semantics all day. When you have no word or representation in your vocabulary to describe "rights", how can you tell someone they have some but are being denied? They do not understand the concept. I mean pick your garden spot, africa, haiti, pakistan, afganistan, iraq, iran, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for impressing the "American morality" or capitalism on the world, whatever you call it. Hell, I was one of the guys doing some of the attitude adjusting at one point, and enjoyed it. Because we have a lot of things going for our way of life. Its no secret everyone wants to come live here from whatever hellhole country they grew up in.

But you've got to realize that we paid for our rights in blood across the years...you don't get it for being born human. You don't get it naturally. You even get a day off every year to salute the people that died to make it and preserve it. And seemingly, every day, another dumbass steps up to the plate and wants to chisel away at the Bill of Rights, from either the right or the left. That's the only real document we have that defines what we get, and we've got to preserve it and enforce it. Otherwise, I fear we may lose all of our rights one day.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

But you've got to realize that we paid for our rights in blood across the years...you don't get it for being born human. You don't get it naturally. You even get a day off every year to salute the people that died to make it and preserve it. And seemingly, every day, another dumbass steps up to the plate and wants to chisel away at the Bill of Rights, from either the right or the left. That's the only real document we have that defines what we get, and we've got to preserve it and enforce it. Otherwise, I fear we may lose all of our rights one day.

Bravo! Well said!

[strickj]

When somebody finally concedes they were wrong and the other guy was right...will you please PM me so I won't have to keep checking the thread everyday to see if there is a winner yet.

HA! I was just thinking the same thing! Will someone please just roll over and die already!

[memphismason]

Because, outside of the US, there is no concept of "rights" as we speak about it. We can sit here and argue semantics all day. When you have no word or representation in your vocabulary to describe "rights", how can you tell someone they have some but are being denied? They do not understand the concept. I mean pick your garden spot, africa, haiti, pakistan, afganistan, iraq, iran, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for impressing the "American morality" or capitalism on the world, whatever you call it. Hell, I was one of the guys doing some of the attitude adjusting at one point, and enjoyed it. Because we have a lot of things going for our way of life. Its no secret everyone wants to come live here from whatever hellhole country they grew up in.

But you've got to realize that we paid for our rights in blood across the years...you don't get it for being born human. You don't get it naturally. You even get a day off every year to salute the people that died to make it and preserve it. And seemingly, every day, another dumbass steps up to the plate and wants to chisel away at the Bill of Rights, from either the right or the left. That's the only real document we have that defines what we get, and we've got to preserve it and enforce it. Otherwise, I fear we may lose all of our rights one day.

+1

Freedom doesn't come Free.

We had to get a bigger stick and then say, "This is the way we want it, now do you brits got a problem with that?"

The rights we have were obtained by men who decided that we should have these rights at all costs. They felt that every man should have these rights, and so do I, but people have to fight for them.

Luckily I didn't have to. The founders of th U.S.of A., and their armies saw to that. And I am thankful that they did.

[Guest nraforlife]

....You saying that you believe you have some right to carry a gun that comes from the state Constitution, U.S. Constitution , or inalienable rights is no more true than saying you have a right to do belly shots off naked strippers in the middle of Broadway in downtown Nashville.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Belly shots off naked strippers can be a form of the pursuit of happiness. As far as doing in middle of Broadway in downtown Nashville goes, well is the area posted properly.