Vegetarian Discussion: Rights In No Way Depend On "necessity"

Rights In No Way Depend On "necessity"
Posts: 51

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-29 12:29:10 EST
No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.

The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
continue to exist.

The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
"need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
enter into it in any way.

Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
necessity in any way.

Rupert
2008-10-30 17:14:51 EST
On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
> Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
>
> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
> continue to exist.
>
> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
> "need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
> enter into it in any way.
>
> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
> violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
> based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
> the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
> reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
> necessity in any way.

Are you familiar with the trolley problem?

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-30 17:33:57 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
>> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
>> Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
>>
>> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
>> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
>> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
>> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
>> continue to exist.
>>
>> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
>> "need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
>> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
>> enter into it in any way.
>>
>> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
>> violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
>> based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
>> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
>> the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
>> reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
>> necessity in any way.
>
> Are you familiar with the trolley problem?

Yes, thanks to you: you already brought it up here in another case to
which it was equally inapplicable.

Rupert
2008-10-30 21:12:03 EST
On Oct 31, 5:33 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
> >> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
> >>   Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
>
> >> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
> >> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
> >> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
> >> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
> >> continue to exist.
>
> >> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
> >> "need" to eat.  In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
> >> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
> >> enter into it in any way.
>
> >> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
> >> violence committed by other humans.  That right is not, in any way,
> >> based on "need".  It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
> >> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
> >> the first place.  Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
> >> reality rights may be violated or abrogated.  They do not depend on
> >> necessity in any way.
>
> > Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
>
> Yes, thanks to you:  you already brought it up here in another case to
> which it was equally inapplicable.

I was just wondering how you would treat the trolley problem in the
context of your statement that "rights, conceptually, are absolute".

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-31 01:06:56 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 31, 5:33 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
>>>> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
>>>> Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
>>>> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
>>>> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
>>>> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
>>>> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
>>>> continue to exist.
>>>> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
>>>> "need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
>>>> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
>>>> enter into it in any way.
>>>> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
>>>> violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
>>>> based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
>>>> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
>>>> the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
>>>> reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
>>>> necessity in any way.
>>> Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
>> Yes, thanks to you: you already brought it up here in another case to
>> which it was equally inapplicable.
>
> I was just wondering how you would treat the trolley problem in the
> context of your statement that "rights, conceptually, are absolute".

They are. The dead guy in the trolley episode still suffered a
violation of his rights. Consider that the entire episode is a
ridiculous contrivance in the first place. If the goofball who
contrived it in the first place can fuck around with plausibility in
that way, then so may I. So, the contrivance is that there are two
courses of action, the one leading to a certain but lesser loss of life.
Now, after it happens, the guy's heirs hire a sharp Jew lawyer who
goes into court and shows that there was a third way out of the bind
that would have involved no loss of life or injury, and /any/ reasonable
person would have seen it. The jury finds for the plaintiffs, and the
guy who threw the switch loses everything. On top of that, the state's
attorney also prosecutes him for manslaughter and he goes to prison for
15 years.

You see what happens when you let the contrivance genie out of the
bottle, you stupid fuckwit?

Rupert
2008-10-31 03:56:43 EST
On Oct 31, 1:06 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 5:33 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
> >>>> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
> >>>>   Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
> >>>> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
> >>>> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
> >>>> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
> >>>> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
> >>>> continue to exist.
> >>>> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
> >>>> "need" to eat.  In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
> >>>> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
> >>>> enter into it in any way.
> >>>> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
> >>>> violence committed by other humans.  That right is not, in any way,
> >>>> based on "need".  It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
> >>>> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
> >>>> the first place.  Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
> >>>> reality rights may be violated or abrogated.  They do not depend on
> >>>> necessity in any way.
> >>> Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
> >> Yes, thanks to you:  you already brought it up here in another case to
> >> which it was equally inapplicable.
>
> > I was just wondering how you would treat the trolley problem in the
> > context of your statement that "rights, conceptually, are absolute".
>
> They are.  The dead guy in the trolley episode still suffered a
> violation of his rights.  Consider that the entire episode is a
> ridiculous contrivance in the first place.  If the goofball who
> contrived it in the first place can fuck around with plausibility in
> that way, then so may I.  So, the contrivance is that there are two
> courses of action, the one leading to a certain but lesser loss of life.
>   Now, after it happens, the guy's heirs hire a sharp Jew lawyer who
> goes into court and shows that there was a third way out of the bind
> that would have involved no loss of life or injury, and /any/ reasonable
> person would have seen it.  The jury finds for the plaintiffs, and the
> guy who threw the switch loses everything.  On top of that, the state's
> attorney also prosecutes him for manslaughter and he goes to prison for
> 15 years.
>
> You see what happens when you let the contrivance genie out of the
> bottle, you stupid fuckwit?

So, Ball, you've got this interesting idea that I don't laugh out loud
when I read your posts.

Or do you?

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-31 10:18:39 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:06 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 5:33 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>>>> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
>>>>>> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
>>>>>> Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
>>>>>> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
>>>>>> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
>>>>>> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
>>>>>> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
>>>>>> continue to exist.
>>>>>> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
>>>>>> "need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
>>>>>> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
>>>>>> enter into it in any way.
>>>>>> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
>>>>>> violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
>>>>>> based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
>>>>>> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
>>>>>> the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
>>>>>> reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
>>>>>> necessity in any way.
>>>>> Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
>>>> Yes, thanks to you: you already brought it up here in another case to
>>>> which it was equally inapplicable.
>>> I was just wondering how you would treat the trolley problem in the
>>> context of your statement that "rights, conceptually, are absolute".
>> They are. The dead guy in the trolley episode still suffered a
>> violation of his rights. Consider that the entire episode is a
>> ridiculous contrivance in the first place. If the goofball who
>> contrived it in the first place can fuck around with plausibility in
>> that way, then so may I. So, the contrivance is that there are two
>> courses of action, the one leading to a certain but lesser loss of life.
>> Now, after it happens, the guy's heirs hire a sharp Jew lawyer who
>> goes into court and shows that there was a third way out of the bind
>> that would have involved no loss of life or injury, and /any/ reasonable
>> person would have seen it. The jury finds for the plaintiffs, and the
>> guy who threw the switch loses everything. On top of that, the state's
>> attorney also prosecutes him for manslaughter and he goes to prison for
>> 15 years.
>>
>> You see what happens when you let the contrivance genie out of the
>> bottle, you stupid fuckwit?
>
> So, Rudy, you've got this interesting idea that I don't laugh out loud
> when I read your posts.

You don't. You're crying tears of rage.

Your contrivance was bullshit. I just piled a little more on.

Rupert
2008-11-01 03:53:31 EST
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 1:06 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 31, 5:33 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
> >>>>>> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
> >>>>>> Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
> >>>>>> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
> >>>>>> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
> >>>>>> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
> >>>>>> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
> >>>>>> continue to exist.
> >>>>>> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
> >>>>>> "need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
> >>>>>> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
> >>>>>> enter into it in any way.
> >>>>>> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
> >>>>>> violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
> >>>>>> based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
> >>>>>> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
> >>>>>> the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
> >>>>>> reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
> >>>>>> necessity in any way.
> >>>>> Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
> >>>> Yes, thanks to you: you already brought it up here in another case to
> >>>> which it was equally inapplicable.
> >>> I was just wondering how you would treat the trolley problem in the
> >>> context of your statement that "rights, conceptually, are absolute".
> >> They are. The dead guy in the trolley episode still suffered a
> >> violation of his rights. Consider that the entire episode is a
> >> ridiculous contrivance in the first place. If the goofball who
> >> contrived it in the first place can fuck around with plausibility in
> >> that way, then so may I. So, the contrivance is that there are two
> >> courses of action, the one leading to a certain but lesser loss of life.
> >> Now, after it happens, the guy's heirs hire a sharp Jew lawyer who
> >> goes into court and shows that there was a third way out of the bind
> >> that would have involved no loss of life or injury, and /any/ reasonable
> >> person would have seen it. The jury finds for the plaintiffs, and the
> >> guy who threw the switch loses everything. On top of that, the state's
> >> attorney also prosecutes him for manslaughter and he goes to prison for
> >> 15 years.
>
> >> You see what happens when you let the contrivance genie out of the
> >> bottle, you stupid fuckwit?
>
> > So, Rudy, you've got this interesting idea that I don't laugh out loud
> > when I read your posts.
>
> You don't. You're crying tears of rage.
>

I had a really good laugh when I read that. Thanks for that. :)

> Your contrivance was bullshit. I just piled a little more on.

You're allowed to consider any hypothetical case you want, Ball. The
trolley case is not that unrealistic. I'm asking you to take some sort
of stance on what is and is not morally permissible in that situation.
Of course you're incapable of saying anything sensible.

Rudy Canoza
2008-11-01 10:16:33 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 1:06 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 31, 5:33 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
>>>>>>>> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
>>>>>>>> Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
>>>>>>>> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
>>>>>>>> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
>>>>>>>> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
>>>>>>>> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
>>>>>>>> continue to exist.
>>>>>>>> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
>>>>>>>> "need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
>>>>>>>> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
>>>>>>>> enter into it in any way.
>>>>>>>> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
>>>>>>>> violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
>>>>>>>> based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
>>>>>>>> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
>>>>>>>> the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
>>>>>>>> reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
>>>>>>>> necessity in any way.
>>>>>>> Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
>>>>>> Yes, thanks to you: you already brought it up here in another case to
>>>>>> which it was equally inapplicable.
>>>>> I was just wondering how you would treat the trolley problem in the
>>>>> context of your statement that "rights, conceptually, are absolute".
>>>> They are. The dead guy in the trolley episode still suffered a
>>>> violation of his rights. Consider that the entire episode is a
>>>> ridiculous contrivance in the first place. If the goofball who
>>>> contrived it in the first place can fuck around with plausibility in
>>>> that way, then so may I. So, the contrivance is that there are two
>>>> courses of action, the one leading to a certain but lesser loss of life.
>>>> Now, after it happens, the guy's heirs hire a sharp Jew lawyer who
>>>> goes into court and shows that there was a third way out of the bind
>>>> that would have involved no loss of life or injury, and /any/ reasonable
>>>> person would have seen it. The jury finds for the plaintiffs, and the
>>>> guy who threw the switch loses everything. On top of that, the state's
>>>> attorney also prosecutes him for manslaughter and he goes to prison for
>>>> 15 years.
>>>> You see what happens when you let the contrivance genie out of the
>>>> bottle, you stupid fuckwit?
>>> So, Rudy, you've got this interesting idea that I don't laugh out loud
>>> when I read your posts.
>> You don't. You're crying tears of rage.
>>
>
> I had a really good cry

I know.


>> Your contrivance was bullshit. I just piled a little more on.
>
> You're allowed to consider any hypothetical case you want, Rudy. The
> trolley case is not that unrealistic.

Now, *I* had a great laugh. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Rupert
2008-11-02 08:54:18 EST
On Nov 1, 10:16 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 31, 1:06 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 31, 5:33 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 30, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> No statement of rights bases those rights on what humans "need" in any
> >>>>>>>> absolute sense - because there is no such thing as "need" in that sense.
> >>>>>>>> Instead, rights are a moral judgment of what people *ought* to have.
> >>>>>>>> The rights to free speech and to freedom of religion are not based on
> >>>>>>>> any "need" to speak freely or to worship (or refrain from worshiping.)
> >>>>>>>> People living under totalitarian regimes that do not recognize those
> >>>>>>>> rights continue to exist; they do not "need" those rights in order to
> >>>>>>>> continue to exist.
> >>>>>>>> The lion doesn't have a "right" to kill gazelles and zebras based on any
> >>>>>>>> "need" to eat. In fact, the lion doesn't have any "right" to kill them
> >>>>>>>> at all; it just *does* it, and rights - and also "necessity" - don't
> >>>>>>>> enter into it in any way.
> >>>>>>>> Humans do, in most societies, have a right to self-defense against
> >>>>>>>> violence committed by other humans. That right is not, in any way,
> >>>>>>>> based on "need". It *cannot* be, because if you could demonstrate that
> >>>>>>>> there is no need, then the right evaporates, and was never a right in
> >>>>>>>> the first place. Rights, conceptually, are absolute, even though in
> >>>>>>>> reality rights may be violated or abrogated. They do not depend on
> >>>>>>>> necessity in any way.
> >>>>>>> Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
> >>>>>> Yes, thanks to you: you already brought it up here in another case to
> >>>>>> which it was equally inapplicable.
> >>>>> I was just wondering how you would treat the trolley problem in the
> >>>>> context of your statement that "rights, conceptually, are absolute".
> >>>> They are. The dead guy in the trolley episode still suffered a
> >>>> violation of his rights. Consider that the entire episode is a
> >>>> ridiculous contrivance in the first place. If the goofball who
> >>>> contrived it in the first place can fuck around with plausibility in
> >>>> that way, then so may I. So, the contrivance is that there are two
> >>>> courses of action, the one leading to a certain but lesser loss of life.
> >>>> Now, after it happens, the guy's heirs hire a sharp Jew lawyer who
> >>>> goes into court and shows that there was a third way out of the bind
> >>>> that would have involved no loss of life or injury, and /any/ reasonable
> >>>> person would have seen it. The jury finds for the plaintiffs, and the
> >>>> guy who threw the switch loses everything. On top of that, the state's
> >>>> attorney also prosecutes him for manslaughter and he goes to prison for
> >>>> 15 years.
> >>>> You see what happens when you let the contrivance genie out of the
> >>>> bottle, you stupid fuckwit?
> >>> So, Rudy, you've got this interesting idea that I don't laugh out loud
> >>> when I read your posts.
> >> You don't. You're crying tears of rage.
>
> > I had a really good cry
>
> I know.
>

Ball, surely you know damn well that I burst out laughing when I read
that post of yours. Surely you could not seriously believe otherwise.
You're not that stupid, are you? Surely not even you are that stupid.

> >> Your contrivance was bullshit. I just piled a little more on.
>
> > You're allowed to consider any hypothetical case you want, Rudy. The
> > trolley case is not that unrealistic.
>
> Now, *I* had a great laugh. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Good for you.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron