I don't see how you've differentiated those things. Where does this "moral right to bodily integrity" come from when I can simply overpower the next woman I see and take from her what I want?
just becos you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. i think you'd be very hard pressed to convince anyone that a tool is just the same as a human being. an inanimate object is not a human being, and thus, they have different statuses. the former cannot act or accomplish anything of its own volition, thus it is entirely subject to and dependent upon the controlled use by another (a person) to be of any value. it needs an "owner" or possessor to fulfill its purpose. human beings do not need this controller to fulfill their "purpose" and this differentiates them from inanimate objects. thus, they are not subject to the same rules and have different rights. one of which is to not be used like a tool. yes, this has happened in the past, but that does not make it right. thus, bodily integrity is necessary to separate humans from bricks. but a god-given right to hold onto your trinkets is not a necessary or reasonable "natural right" and it never has been.
just becos you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. i think you'd be very hard pressed to convince anyone that a tool is just the same as a human being.
Hehe...I'm not trying to convince anyone that a human being is a tool. You, those like you, and those that have come before you are.
Anytime you use people, without paying heed to their will one way or the other, to accomplish your own aims, you're treating people like tools. Human beings own their individual wills, their minds, and their bodies. Without accepting that, you are completely free to treat a person just like you would treat a cow, a plant, or a rock. Just remember you've defined yourself as well in that process.
an inanimate object is not a human being, and thus, they have different statuses. the former cannot act or accomplish anything of its own volition, thus it is entirely subject to and dependent upon the controlled use by another (a person) to be of any value. it needs an "owner" or possessor to fulfill its purpose. human beings do not need this controller to fulfill their "purpose" and this differentiates them from inanimate objects. thus, they are not subject to the same rules and have different rights. one of which is to not be used like a tool. yes, this has happened in the past, but that does not make it right. thus, bodily integrity is necessary to separate humans from bricks.
Couldn't agree more!
but a god-given right to hold onto your trinkets is not a necessary or reasonable "natural right" and it never has been.
I never said it was a necessarily a true natural right. I'm saying it is a choice. A choice between exchange and force. You can have one, or you can have the other. But please don't justify force with arguments of peace. It simply doesn't work.
I never said it was a necessarily a true natural right. I'm saying it is a choice. A choice between exchange and force. You can have one, or you can have the other. But please don't justify force with arguments of peace. It simply doesn't work.
i don't think i ever tried to justify it by mentioning peace. i dont think i've used that word in this entire debate. i was just contesting your assertion that you feel you have an uncontestable right to life, liberty, and property, as i felt the third was clearly in the "one of these is not like the others" camp. life and liberty, yes. property, i don't think so. i think the first two are uncontestable rights, for the reasons i just outlined. but i don't see the third in the same category, which is why i have difficulty accepting it when you argue for your right to property as a moral thing, cos i don't think it is on that playing field.
Govt: bend over...ok...now a little further...that's it...keep going...mmmmm
You: sigh...ok...
end of story...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i was just contesting your assertion that you feel you have an uncontestable right to life, liberty, and property, as i felt the third was clearly in the "one of these is not like the others" camp.
If any were uncontestable, we wouldn't have murder, slavery, or theft, and none of this would matter. Each one is certainly contestable. It is that which contests each -- violence in the face of the individual ownership of each -- that I stand against.
I completely see your points here, and I don't even take serious issue with many of them. I'm just not sure you see the ends of what you're defending sometimes. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
If any were uncontestable, we wouldn't have murder, slavery, or theft, and none of this would matter. Each one is certainly contestable. It is that which contests each -- violence in the face of the individual ownership of each -- that I stand against.
I completely see your points here, and I don't even take serious issue with many of them. I'm just not sure you see the ends of what you're defending sometimes. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
As always, it's been fun. Take care.
-Jeff
perhaps it's becos i have no qualms in drawing arbitrary distinctions whenever i decide it "feels" right, so i dont care if my logic is occasionally less than perfect or slightly inconsistent
what I dont understand is, why, its a fact, that so many of the Forbes richest people in the u.s., are also pro-tax. You think it would be the other way. The logic goes that, at least in right wing circles, that the richer a person is the more taxes they pay. Yet Bill Gates and his father, both enormously rich folks are protax. Very interesting.
Secondly, I am a left winger. A radical. A commie pinko and am against taxes. over 50 percent of our taxes goes to funding this war. Taxes go toward perpetuating the system, and they legitimize the state. Taxes go to funding and paying the salaries of rabid racist cops who gun down inner city youth just for being black or just for drawing their wallets.
Taxes go to building more roads, building more of this system, and thus leads to more people owning cars and more gas being used and polluting our world.
Taxes are wrong and I aint gonna pay mine.
Nothing this system does is in our interest. Nothing. The only remedy, let me stress this THE ONLY REMEDY, is to destroy it and topple it.
what I dont understand is, why, its a fact, that so many of the Forbes richest people in the u.s., are also pro-tax. You think it would be the other way. The logic goes that, at least in right wing circles, that the richer a person is the more taxes they pay. Yet Bill Gates and his father, both enormously rich folks are protax. Very interesting.
Secondly, I am a left winger. A radical. A commie pinko and am against taxes. over 50 percent of our taxes goes to funding this war. Taxes go toward perpetuating the system, and they legitimize the state. Taxes go to funding and paying the salaries of rabid racist cops who gun down inner city youth just for being black or just for drawing their wallets.
Taxes go to building more roads, building more of this system, and thus leads to more people owning cars and more gas being used and polluting our world.
Taxes are wrong and I aint gonna pay mine.
Nothing this system does is in our interest. Nothing. The only remedy, let me stress this THE ONLY REMEDY, is to destroy it and topple it.
LOL, after a recent trip to Mexico I've never been more happy to pay my taxes!
what I dont understand is, why, its a fact, that so many of the Forbes richest people in the u.s., are also pro-tax. You think it would be the other way. The logic goes that, at least in right wing circles, that the richer a person is the more taxes they pay. Yet Bill Gates and his father, both enormously rich folks are protax. Very interesting.
Secondly, I am a left winger. A radical. A commie pinko and am against taxes. over 50 percent of our taxes goes to funding this war. Taxes go toward perpetuating the system, and they legitimize the state. Taxes go to funding and paying the salaries of rabid racist cops who gun down inner city youth just for being black or just for drawing their wallets.
Taxes go to building more roads, building more of this system, and thus leads to more people owning cars and more gas being used and polluting our world.
Taxes are wrong and I aint gonna pay mine.
Nothing this system does is in our interest. Nothing. The only remedy, let me stress this THE ONLY REMEDY, is to destroy it and topple it.
This is why liberalism isn't taken seriously anymore.
Comments
just becos you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. i think you'd be very hard pressed to convince anyone that a tool is just the same as a human being. an inanimate object is not a human being, and thus, they have different statuses. the former cannot act or accomplish anything of its own volition, thus it is entirely subject to and dependent upon the controlled use by another (a person) to be of any value. it needs an "owner" or possessor to fulfill its purpose. human beings do not need this controller to fulfill their "purpose" and this differentiates them from inanimate objects. thus, they are not subject to the same rules and have different rights. one of which is to not be used like a tool. yes, this has happened in the past, but that does not make it right. thus, bodily integrity is necessary to separate humans from bricks. but a god-given right to hold onto your trinkets is not a necessary or reasonable "natural right" and it never has been.
Hehe...I'm not trying to convince anyone that a human being is a tool. You, those like you, and those that have come before you are.
Anytime you use people, without paying heed to their will one way or the other, to accomplish your own aims, you're treating people like tools. Human beings own their individual wills, their minds, and their bodies. Without accepting that, you are completely free to treat a person just like you would treat a cow, a plant, or a rock. Just remember you've defined yourself as well in that process.
Couldn't agree more!
I never said it was a necessarily a true natural right. I'm saying it is a choice. A choice between exchange and force. You can have one, or you can have the other. But please don't justify force with arguments of peace. It simply doesn't work.
i don't think i ever tried to justify it by mentioning peace. i dont think i've used that word in this entire debate. i was just contesting your assertion that you feel you have an uncontestable right to life, liberty, and property, as i felt the third was clearly in the "one of these is not like the others" camp. life and liberty, yes. property, i don't think so. i think the first two are uncontestable rights, for the reasons i just outlined. but i don't see the third in the same category, which is why i have difficulty accepting it when you argue for your right to property as a moral thing, cos i don't think it is on that playing field.
Govt: bend over...ok...now a little further...that's it...keep going...mmmmm
You: sigh...ok...
end of story...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If any were uncontestable, we wouldn't have murder, slavery, or theft, and none of this would matter. Each one is certainly contestable. It is that which contests each -- violence in the face of the individual ownership of each -- that I stand against.
I completely see your points here, and I don't even take serious issue with many of them. I'm just not sure you see the ends of what you're defending sometimes. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
As always, it's been fun. Take care.
-Jeff
perhaps it's becos i have no qualms in drawing arbitrary distinctions whenever i decide it "feels" right, so i dont care if my logic is occasionally less than perfect or slightly inconsistent
anyway, that it has. bon soir!
Secondly, I am a left winger. A radical. A commie pinko and am against taxes. over 50 percent of our taxes goes to funding this war. Taxes go toward perpetuating the system, and they legitimize the state. Taxes go to funding and paying the salaries of rabid racist cops who gun down inner city youth just for being black or just for drawing their wallets.
Taxes go to building more roads, building more of this system, and thus leads to more people owning cars and more gas being used and polluting our world.
Taxes are wrong and I aint gonna pay mine.
Nothing this system does is in our interest. Nothing. The only remedy, let me stress this THE ONLY REMEDY, is to destroy it and topple it.
LOL, after a recent trip to Mexico I've never been more happy to pay my taxes!
This is why liberalism isn't taken seriously anymore.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825