13 May 08
Originally posted by FMFforgive them oh great fmf. if it pleases your highness we will change the topic to "do we restrict our right to protect plants?" it is so much better.
I tried. But I don't think I answered it very well, it's fair to say.
Rights are a human construct. To say that they are "possessed" is just being esoteric. They quite clearly are given, taken away, flaunted, enforced, reduced, expanded etc. Rights are enshrined in laws, not people. To argue that rights somehow exist 'inside' humans, regardless of the reality ...[text shortened]... s use laws to restrict their own "rights" regarding the treatment of "non-humans".
rights and responsibilities are not inseparable. i have the right to live, what responsibility directly derives from that without society intervening? we have fundamental human rights not fundamental human responsibilities. responsibilities are put in place by different societies and in a different degree and manner.
a child has the right to live but if he poops in the middle of the street he will not be thrown in jail. so what a surprise: there really are rights without responsibilities.
13 May 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziGoodness me, you are making a fool of yourself. What is this? Humour?
forgive them oh great fmf. if it pleases your highness we will change the topic to "do we restrict our right to protect plants?" it is so much better.
"we will change the topic to "do we restrict our right to protect plants?" it is so much better" ??? It seems you don't understand at all. Oh well,
13 May 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziRead my posts and stop being so dull.
"Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights." then a child who can assume no responsibilities has no rights. or a dog. or a mentally retarded person. that was what i meant by stupid.
13 May 08
Originally posted by FMFare you daft? maybe a hit to your head? "Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights." this is what you said. substitute that with small babies or animals or retarded people and tell me why is any different. or substitute your name with DSR and i will let it go. because i am only posting again because i refuse to think there might be another DSR boring us.
Read my posts and stop being so dull.
13 May 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat is wrong with you?
are you daft? maybe a hit to your head? "Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights." this is what you said. substitute that with small babies or animals or retarded people and tell me why is any different. or substitute your name with DSR and i will let it go. because i am only posting again because i refuse to think there might be another DSR boring us.
Only human beings can have "rights". That's what it means. Not animals. Not plants. Not Lego. Nothing else. Human beings only. All human beings. Read my posts, for heaven's sake. I don't give two hoots if you don't like me. But you are being dull and argumentative for no reason. You are cluttering up this thread which posts which re deliberately zooming in on one sentence that has been clarified by half a dozen or more subsequent posts. You've got some chip on your shoulder and I've no idea why. And the DSR jibes are water off a duck's back.
13 May 08
Originally posted by FMFi read your posts. if you insist on calling animal rights "the things we do to protect them" it is your decision. i am just curious as to why my right to freedom or living isn't exactly "the things the government does to protect me"
What is wrong with you?
Only human beings can have "rights". That's what it means. Not animals. Not plants. Not Lego. Nothing else. Human beings only. All human beings. Read my posts, for heaven's sake. I don't give two hoots if you don't like me. But you are being dull and argumentative for no reason. You are cluttering up this thread which posts which re de ...[text shortened]... p on your shoulder and I've no idea why. And the DSR jibes are water off a duck's back.
why do you insist that animals have no rights but that we restrict our rights to protect them? is it to have an argument? is your life so dull?(you seem to like this word a lot).
for your informations every right is a restriction of some other person's right. the right to freedom is restricting other person's right to own slaves. the right to life is restricting other person's right to guess what. so call it what you want, i won't argue on that.
and since you like calling me dull and whatever adjective you find in the dictionary(or maybe you have a list of cool words) let's consider you already called me dull and this time try to actualy debate: Where in all your posts did you explain that those that "[...] are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights." doesn't include people(human beings) that cannot assume responsibilities?
13 May 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't know how it is for you, but I can assure you I did not have to look the word "dull" up in a dictionary.
and since you like calling me dull and whatever adjective you find in the dictionary(or maybe you have a list of cool words) let's consider you already called me dull and this time try to actualy debate:
My posts are there for you to read.
The only life form capable of conceiving of and exercising rights and understanding the counterbalancing concept of responsibilities are human beings. So, human beings have rights. Other life forms don't. That's my opinion. First time I stated it, it was too concise (and admittedly misleading) and I got called on it and so I clarified it. It's only you who keeps chuntering on as if you refuse to read any post except that first one. All human beings have rights.
Animals don't, except they have kind of de facto rights due to human beings' common humanity. Any right we might feel we have to simply do whatever we want to animals has been curtailed by laws that protect animals. In this sense animals have a kind of set of rights, in effect. But those are not, according to my way of thinking, afforded to the animals themselves (that would be daft - I say) but instead take the form of laws that humans pass protect animals - and in so doing humans restrict any "rights" they might have had to mistreat animals (for example).
That is what I believe. That is what I meant. That is what my clarifications meant and said. And I feel like I have said the same thing over and over again to you.
Mentally disabled humans and babies have rights. Plants don't. Animals don't. That's my opinion. Debate that please. But do not try to imply that I believe that mentally disabled humans and babies do not have rights. That is not what I believe, quite clearly. And claiming that I do is simply not real debating.
13 May 08
Originally posted by FMFyou keep hanging on to semantics. people have rights. but animals don't because we restrict our rights to protect them. you don't see any similarity?
I don't know how it is for you, but I can assure you I did not have to look the word "dull" up in a dictionary.
My posts are there for you to read.
The only life form capable of conceiving of and exercising rights and understanding the counterbalancing concept of responsibilities are human beings. So, human beings have rights. Other life forms don't. That' ...[text shortened]... what I believe, quite clearly. And claiming that I do is simply not real debating.
nevermind, you are right.
13 May 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziSerious question: are you pretending not to understand? Is that your 'Forum persona'? This is not a dig. I'm trying to make sense of your last few posts. I mean, I seriously do not know what to make of this: "but animals don't [have rights] BECAUSE we restrict our rights to protect them" (my emphasis, your words). You are mis-stating what I am saying. Is it because you don't understand? Or is it because you just want to oppose whatever I post. Whichever way, you are 'playing the pugnacious dunce' to a tee - and I just can't figure out why.
people have rights. but animals don't because we restrict our rights to protect them. you don't see any similarity?
13 May 08
Originally posted by FMFRights cannot be given; that implies then can be taken away by fiat. What does it mean to have a "right" that can be taken away at any time for any reason?
I tried. But I don't think I answered it very well, it's fair to say.
Rights are a human construct. To say that they are "possessed" is just being esoteric. They quite clearly are given, taken away, flaunted, enforced, reduced, expanded etc. Rights are enshrined in laws, not people. To argue that rights somehow exist 'inside' humans, regardless of the reality ...[text shortened]... s use laws to restrict their own "rights" regarding the treatment of "non-humans".
The one talking mumbo-jumbo is you. You obviously don't have the vaguest clue what a right is.
13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you obviously have no idea about reality, would have to be my trite answer to your trite barb. But why are you sinking to this? Without basing a discussion of "rights" in reality, we might as well talk about tomorrow's weather. I'm a little bit surprised at you, no1marauder. You're no Zahlanzi. And I've long thought so. So what's this juvenile "You obviously don't have the vaguest clue" thing? It may work with the Thequ1cks and bogles and revbutes and Dace Aces and whodeys of this world (where, quite frankly, it's probably spot on). Is this really to be your debating style when you cross swords with a fellow thinker? Do you honestly believe I don't have "the vaguest clue what a right is"? Or are you just being "prickly" for show?
You obviously don't have the vaguest clue what a right is.
13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes, I do. You ignored my first sentence which addressed the substance of your posts and went off on a shrill, hysterical rant. That isn't "thinking" at all.
And you obviously have no idea about reality, would have to be my trite answer to your trite barb. But why are you sinking to this? Without basing a discussion of "rights" in reality, we might as well talk about tomorrow's weather. I'm a little bit surprised at you, no1marauder. You're no Zahlanzi. And I've long thought so. So what's this juvenile "You obviously vaguest clue what a right is"? Or are you just being "prickly" for show?
So if you're ready to actual start debating, please explain the concept of a "right" which has to be given and can be taken away.
Natural Rights theory is based on reality, but the reality remains that rights existed before laws.