Sheriff calls for guns on campus

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

To you.
I grew-up on a ranch using guns, yes, handguns, every day. A few times to save my life.
That does not matter... it is still not your place.

I am not trying to take your guns away from your ranch or the general public, just my college campus. That is the only place I have been fighting to get guns banned on this thread, or on this entire board I think.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They don't? They do unless something interferes with their right to do that.

That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.

If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.

In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.

You are the one complicating matters. Animals do what they want unless/until something stops them. Very simple.

If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.

The hell it won't. Lions will chase anything out of their territory on a whim. They can do what they want. So can the Cheetah unless the lion stops it. Very simple.

In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.

No one and nothing can give you rights, only take them away.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You are the one complicating matters. Animals do what they want unless/until something stops them. Very simple.

You do not need rights for animals to do what they want unless something stops them. The idea of rights is what complicates it.

If you are in a fight to the death do you need someone to tell you that you can do whatever you want, you just do what you need to survive (or at least a smart person does and nature tends to have a way with dumb people in those situations).

The hell it won't. Lions will chase anything out of their territory on a whim. They can do what they want. So can the Cheetah unless the lion stops it. Very simple.

Why does the lion chase the other animals out of its territory? Because the lion has a territorial instinct passed down from its previous ancestor that also had it. The territorial instinct beat the non-territorial instinct in natural selection so instinct tells the lion that chasing the other animals out of its territory will ensure the passing of its genes on, which follows my rule.

For my initial example, I was talking about the lion leaving its territory to kill the cheetah to eliminate competition.

No one and nothing can give you rights, only take them away.

You can't just get rights from nothing. Something has to give them to us or they cease to exist. Everything has a source, something has to come from something else (there are exceptions but that has nothing to do with this).

The idea of infinite rights is the same thing as nothing. If you get in a fight where someone tells you everything is fair game and you get in a fight where no one tells you anything, it is the same fight; just the second is much simpler.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If you are in a fight to the death do you need someone to tell you that you can do whatever you want, you just do what you need to survive (or at least a smart person does and nature tends to have a way with dumb people in those situations).

Thats it! You don't need some one to tell you. You finally got it! Your (they're) rights are natural, given by no one.

Why does the lion chase the other animals out of its territory? Because the lion has a territorial instinct passed down from its previous ancestor that also had it. The territorial instinct beat the non-territorial instinct in natural selection so instinct tells the lion that chasing the other animals out of its territory will ensure the passing of its genes on, which follows my rule.

For my initial example, I was talking about the lion leaving its territory to kill the cheetah to eliminate competition.

See how complicated you're trying to make everything? The Lion does it because nobody/nothing is impinging on his right to do what ever the hell he wants. Simple.

You can't just get rights from nothing. Something has to give them to us or they cease to exist. Everything has a source, something has to come from something else (there are exceptions but that has nothing to do with this).

Oh, I see... you wish to violate my rights by limiting acceptable examples. I don't think so.

The idea of infinite rights is the same thing as nothing. If you get in a fight where someone tells you everything is fair game and you get in a fight where no one tells you anything, it is the same fight; just the second is much simpler.

Exactly... you're catching on now.... the second, nobody tells you what your rights are, is much simpler.
If you get into a fight and willingly allow someone to interfere with your right to do what you want, you're a damn fool.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I am not trying to take your guns away from your ranch or the general public, just my college campus. That is the only place I have been fighting to get guns banned on this thread, or on this entire board I think.


That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.

If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.

In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.

Riiiiggght... not having guns has never killed anyone on a campus, oh... wait.
No one gives me shit, my rights are my own.
There is no god.