The Cellar - View Single Post

piercehawkeye45 · 12-10-2007, 04:00 PM

Eh, you missed the point with my gravity argument.

I'll change it. If there was some way we could ignore gravity for one person, they would be able to float around like we see in videos of space shuttles. We can imagine what it would be like without the force of gravity. You cannot imagine what a person would be like without rights. If you can, describe a person without rights. If you cannot take away something, how do we know its true effects?

And you are being way too idealistic with your examples. I have stayed away with right of life because I do not know a single person who doesn't think they have a right to life. If there is a dispute, it is usually one group forcing what they think rights are on another group, which I ideally disagree with. I don't believe in unalienable rights but since right to life is something that everyone can agree on when it comes to themselves, we can assume it is. Same goes for pursuit of happiness.

The reason why I find this discussion funny is because our views are not that different. We only vary on a few small differences while the rest remain the same. I say that everyone agrees that they have a right to life so it is a right that everyone enjoys while you say it is fundamental and it cannot be taken away. The real only difference is where we get our rights from and I say in hypothetical situation where a group of people say they have no right to life, it wouldn't be immoral to kill them. Just that a group of people that say they have no right to life would be wiped out immediately from the gene pool.

Besides property in a few situation (that is only if no individual has property) I do not argue the rights to life, property, and pursuit of happiness because everyone can agree that they should have those rights. I do not look for rights that we automatically have, I look for rights that everyone can agree we have. Of course I know that some are idealistic (POH for example), because there are a lot of times when one has to take away someone else's pursuit of happiness to promote one's own but that is a different issue.

12-10-2007, 04:00 PM	#163
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Eh, you missed the point with my gravity argument. I'll change it. If there was some way we could ignore gravity for one person, they would be able to float around like we see in videos of space shuttles. We can imagine what it would be like without the force of gravity. You cannot imagine what a person would be like without rights. If you can, describe a person without rights. If you cannot take away something, how do we know its true effects? And you are being way too idealistic with your examples. I have stayed away with right of life because I do not know a single person who doesn't think they have a right to life. If there is a dispute, it is usually one group forcing what they think rights are on another group, which I ideally disagree with. I don't believe in unalienable rights but since right to life is something that everyone can agree on when it comes to themselves, we can assume it is. Same goes for pursuit of happiness. The reason why I find this discussion funny is because our views are not that different. We only vary on a few small differences while the rest remain the same. I say that everyone agrees that they have a right to life so it is a right that everyone enjoys while you say it is fundamental and it cannot be taken away. The real only difference is where we get our rights from and I say in hypothetical situation where a group of people say they have no right to life, it wouldn't be immoral to kill them. Just that a group of people that say they have no right to life would be wiped out immediately from the gene pool. Besides property in a few situation (that is only if no individual has property) I do not argue the rights to life, property, and pursuit of happiness because everyone can agree that they should have those rights. I do not look for rights that we automatically have, I look for rights that everyone can agree we have. Of course I know that some are idealistic (POH for example), because there are a lot of times when one has to take away someone else's pursuit of happiness to promote one's own but that is a different issue.