Hello. Ongoing debate with a relativist rolleyes: I know....)
and he's got me stumped.
I think that we have rights because we agree to them, but here's what he replied to that:
WHOA there, cowboy. Let's back up a second and take a look at something you
just wrote:
"...I believe that humans have rights for the same reason money has value:
because we agree to them." Did you think I'd just gloss over that section of
your e-mail?! ;-)
Do you see how admitting that puts you in a wee bit of a conundrum regarding
your earlier position on rights? Why the flip-flop? Are rights definite and
immutable, or are the relativistic? Sounds like you quite a relativistic
position you've just staked out for yourself there, buddy. Care to
elaborate, or maybe you care to take it back? If you don't you got some
'splaining to do.
And by the way, admitting that rights are rights because we agree to them
does, indeed, make them no longer inalienable. If they are rights only
because people agree to them, then as soon as people STOP agreeing to them,
they are by definition no longer inalienable. C'mon, Strati!! Follow your
own logic -- I shouldn't have to do it for you. Seriously.
Regarding carrying a gun to protect my life and that of my family: Why do
you think I choose not to carry a gun? I bet you have no idea why I don't.
There are two reasons actually, but one of them applies to me personally,
and is also the main reason I'm generally in favor of banning handguns.
Strati wrote: "The right to self-defense follows naturally from the right to
life,
because if one does not have the right to defend their life, then the
initial right to life is meaningless."
I agree with you here for the most part. However, societies have always, and
will always, put limits on how someone is able to defend themselves. If you
don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance,
then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to
carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can
answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed
to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to
understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of
handguns.
How old are you, Strati?
------------------------------------------------
(Oh, and you don't EVEN want to know what he said when I asked him what he would do if society decided that every man and woman should have their way with his wife and youngest kid five days a week....(He's a utilitarian too...) )
HELP!
Drjones
and he's got me stumped.
I think that we have rights because we agree to them, but here's what he replied to that:
WHOA there, cowboy. Let's back up a second and take a look at something you
just wrote:
"...I believe that humans have rights for the same reason money has value:
because we agree to them." Did you think I'd just gloss over that section of
your e-mail?! ;-)
Do you see how admitting that puts you in a wee bit of a conundrum regarding
your earlier position on rights? Why the flip-flop? Are rights definite and
immutable, or are the relativistic? Sounds like you quite a relativistic
position you've just staked out for yourself there, buddy. Care to
elaborate, or maybe you care to take it back? If you don't you got some
'splaining to do.
And by the way, admitting that rights are rights because we agree to them
does, indeed, make them no longer inalienable. If they are rights only
because people agree to them, then as soon as people STOP agreeing to them,
they are by definition no longer inalienable. C'mon, Strati!! Follow your
own logic -- I shouldn't have to do it for you. Seriously.
Regarding carrying a gun to protect my life and that of my family: Why do
you think I choose not to carry a gun? I bet you have no idea why I don't.
There are two reasons actually, but one of them applies to me personally,
and is also the main reason I'm generally in favor of banning handguns.
Strati wrote: "The right to self-defense follows naturally from the right to
life,
because if one does not have the right to defend their life, then the
initial right to life is meaningless."
I agree with you here for the most part. However, societies have always, and
will always, put limits on how someone is able to defend themselves. If you
don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance,
then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to
carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can
answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed
to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to
understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of
handguns.
How old are you, Strati?
------------------------------------------------
(Oh, and you don't EVEN want to know what he said when I asked him what he would do if society decided that every man and woman should have their way with his wife and youngest kid five days a week....(He's a utilitarian too...) )
HELP!
Drjones