Debates
10 Aug 10
10 Aug 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHardwired? Have you spent much time around children?
It seems to me that what Natural Rights really are are hardwired guidelines by which we self-regulate violence.
That is, violence is ok if and only if peoples' rights are violated.
Because of this, it makes me very angry to see generally hawkish people make light of rights violations. They are nothing to joke about.
10 Aug 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo anyway, after sidelining your whole thread over your (still somewhat flawed IMO) definition of Natural Rights, I should afford you the opportunity to get back on track with your main point.
It seems to me that what Natural Rights really are are hardwired guidelines by which we self-regulate violence.
That is, violence is ok if and only if peoples' rights are violated.
Because of this, it makes me very angry to see generally hawkish people make light of rights violations. They are nothing to joke about.
What are you getting at about hawkish people and rights violations? Do you have an example of some hawk making light of a violation of rights?
10 Aug 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI believe the true difficulty is in determining when such principle applies, as depending on the situation certain rights may seem untenable.
It seems to me that what Natural Rights really are are hardwired guidelines by which we self-regulate violence.
That is, violence is ok if and only if peoples' rights are violated.
Because of this, it makes me very angry to see generally hawkish people make light of rights violations. They are nothing to joke about.
Personally I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that every time there is an issue of rights violations those who hesitate to defend the alledged victims of such abuse are necessarily "hawkish" or mean-spirited, Im sure some of these individuals simply have different interpretation of the laws, or rights and how or when they should apply.