[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually Sauron was clearly superior to everyone else except for Morgoth (who had the same goals and was actually pretty much a demi-god). So yeah he did have a fairly rational claim to rule. Also much like your belief that babies have no rights Sauron was so far above that of men that I doubt he believed they had rights either.worlock77You think it's rational for someone to claim to have a right to make others his slaves because he is "far above them"? That reflects very poorly on you, and undermines your credibility in a discussion of ethics. No it is not rational to enslave others. No one has a legitimate claim to enslave anyone. And as I have said many times before, the only people entitled to rights are those capable of conceptualizing rights. An intelligent, self-aware, critically thinking individual is in no way comparable to an infant. Do you believe we have the right to keep animals as pets, or to cage them their entire lives, using them as beasts of burden or killing the to consume them? If so, why? We don't necessarily have a right to animals, but we can. Most animals are incapable of conceptualizing rights, and are therefore not entitled to them. A horse is incapable of conceptualizing rights, therefore it has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit, just as a tree is incapable of conceptualizing rights and therefore has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit.
A plan to impeach Obama
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Do you believe we have the right to keep animals as pets, or to cage them their entire lives, using them as beasts of burden or killing the to consume them? If so, why? We don't necessarily have a right to animals, but we can. Most animals are incapable of conceptualizing rights, and are therefore not entitled to them. A horse is incapable of conceptualizing rights, therefore it has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit, just as a tree is incapable of conceptualizing rights and therefore has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit. Basically just another way of saying "I'm above them, and so can use them for my own ends".[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]You think it's rational for someone to claim to have a right to make others his slaves because he is "far above them"? That reflects very poorly on you, and undermines your credibility in a discussion of ethics. No it is not rational to enslave others. No one has a legitimate claim to enslave anyone. And as I have said many times before, the only people entitled to rights are those capable of conceptualizing rights. An intelligent, self-aware, critically thinking individual is in no way comparable to an infant.Laihendi
Do you believe we have the right to keep animals as pets, or to cage them their entire lives, using them as beasts of burden or killing the to consume them? If so, why? We don't necessarily have a right to animals, but we can. Most animals are incapable of conceptualizing rights, and are therefore not entitled to them. A horse is incapable of conceptualizing rights, therefore it has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit, just as a tree is incapable of conceptualizing rights and therefore has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit. So really all you're saying is that Sauron was right in what he did because he was a higher creation than everything else.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]You think it's rational for someone to claim to have a right to make others his slaves because he is "far above them"? That reflects very poorly on you, and undermines your credibility in a discussion of ethics. No it is not rational to enslave others. No one has a legitimate claim to enslave anyone. And as I have said many times before, the only people entitled to rights are those capable of conceptualizing rights. An intelligent, self-aware, critically thinking individual is in no way comparable to an infant.Laihendi
[QUOTE="worlock77"]There is nothing inherently wrong with power, or the desire of it. Aragorn had power, and he used it to protect the freedom of his subjects. Sauron had power, and he used it to oppress his subjects.LaihendiAragorn was, to be perfectly honest, a badly written anomaly. A reflection of Tolkien's Judeo-Christian belief in an eventual worldly messiah-king. One of the major themes of Tolkien's works (Aragorn aside) is that power corrupts. He practically beats the reader over the head with this point. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Bombadil and others all had great power, and were all forces of good.
Sure, and Tolkein fairly blatantly says that the desire for more power, in order to fulfil their own good intentions, would have been their downfall.
On Gandalf:
"With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly....Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me"
When offered the Ring, Galadriel says (before ultimately coming to her senses and rejecting the power):
"And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!'"
...and Tolkein stated that Elrond would have suffered the same fate - it is only through previous thought and resolve that the two of them were able overcome their desire for the Ring.
Point is, the desire for power is strong enough to seduce but the strongest of minds, and the actual possession of that power corrupts absolutely.
One's plans for that power are meaningless, and good intentions would in fact weaken one's ability to resist the allure of power.
It is only through compassion and selflessness and other quaint moralistic virtues that one is able to resist the allure of power, and even then, nobody is able to hold out indefinitely.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]We don't necessarily have a right to animals, but we can. Most animals are incapable of conceptualizing rights, and are therefore not entitled to them. A horse is incapable of conceptualizing rights, therefore it has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit, just as a tree is incapable of conceptualizing rights and therefore has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit. So really all you're saying is that Sauron was right in what he did because he was a higher creation than everything else. Why are you so adamant in your belief that Sauron is better than others? He was a despicable moral degenerate who enslaved countless thousands of people. He was not a higher creation, he was a monster. You are digging a hole for yourself. @Warlock - It is impossible for life to exist without consuming other life. For example, all food (and the ingredients that make it) are lifeforms (plants, fungus, animals). The question isn't whether we should use/consume life, but which life we should use.[QUOTE="worlock77"] Do you believe we have the right to keep animals as pets, or to cage them their entire lives, using them as beasts of burden or killing the to consume them? If so, why?Ace6301
My ethical principles are rational, therefore any ethical principles that contradict my own are irrational. The consequences of the actions made by Sauron, Saruman, and Isildur demonstrates that they were not following a valid logical process.Laihendi
You're just too stupidto understand that your principles aren't rational
Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Bombadil and others all had great power, and were all forces of good.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"] Aragorn was, to be perfectly honest, a badly written anomaly. A reflection of Tolkien's Judeo-Christian belief in an eventual worldly messiah-king. One of the major themes of Tolkien's works (Aragorn aside) is that power corrupts. He practically beats the reader over the head with this point.Planeforger
Sure, and Tolkein fairly blatantly says that the desire for more power, in order to fulfil their own good intentions, would have been their downfall.
On Gandalf:
"With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly....Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me"
When offered the Ring, Galadriel says (before ultimately coming to her senses and rejecting the power):
"And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!'"
...and Tolkein stated that Elrond would have suffered the same fate - it is only through previous thought and resolve that the two of them were able overcome their desire for the Ring.
Point is, the desire for power is strong enough to seduce but the strongest of minds, and the actual possession of that power corrupts absolutely.
One's plans for that power are meaningless, and good intentions would in fact weaken one's ability to resist the allure of power.
It is only through compassion and selflessness and other quaint moralistic virtues that one is able to resist the allure of power, and even then, nobody is able to hold out indefinitely.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]My ethical principles are rational, therefore any ethical principles that contradict my own are irrational. The consequences of the actions made by Sauron, Saruman, and Isildur demonstrates that they were not following a valid logical process.Guybrush_3
You're just too stupidto understand that your principles aren't rational
Please explain how it is stupid to believe that slavery is wrong.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] We don't necessarily have a right to animals, but we can. Most animals are incapable of conceptualizing rights, and are therefore not entitled to them. A horse is incapable of conceptualizing rights, therefore it has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit, just as a tree is incapable of conceptualizing rights and therefore has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit.LaihendiSo really all you're saying is that Sauron was right in what he did because he was a higher creation than everything else. Why are you so adamant in your belief that Sauron is better than others? He was a despicable moral degenerate who enslaved countless thousands of people. He was not a higher creation, he was a monster. You are digging a hole for yourself. @Warlock - It is impossible for life to exist without consuming other life. For example, all food (and the ingredients that make it) are lifeforms (plants, fungus, animals). The question isn't whether we should use/consume life, but which life we should use. He was literally a higher creation than man just as man is a higher creation than a dog. Just because man is magnitudes more intelligent and capable than a dog does not however mean that the dog is morally degenerate. Sauron was stronger, more capable and more intelligent than humans, elves and dwarves. He was capable of things they couldn't dream of accomplishing. I'm not digging a hole for myself because this is all canon in the books.
It is impossible for life to exist without consuming other life. For example, all food (and the ingredients that make it) are lifeforms (plants, fungus, animals). The question isn't whether we should use/consume life, but which life we should use.Laihendi
Plenty of life forms exist that don't consume other lifeforms.
Theory; the OP ate paint chips as a kid.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] It is impossible for life to exist without consuming other life. For example, all food (and the ingredients that make it) are lifeforms (plants, fungus, animals). The question isn't whether we should use/consume life, but which life we should use.Guybrush_3
Plenty of life forms exist that don't consume other lifeforms.
Please provide examples.
[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] It is impossible for life to exist without consuming other life. For example, all food (and the ingredients that make it) are lifeforms (plants, fungus, animals). The question isn't whether we should use/consume life, but which life we should use.Laihendi
Plenty of life forms exist that don't consume other lifeforms.
Please provide examples. Most plants, I guess?[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] It is impossible for life to exist without consuming other life. For example, all food (and the ingredients that make it) are lifeforms (plants, fungus, animals). The question isn't whether we should use/consume life, but which life we should use.Laihendi
Plenty of life forms exist that don't consume other lifeforms.
Please provide examples.Plankton,trees, dust mites.[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] It is impossible for life to exist without consuming other life. For example, all food (and the ingredients that make it) are lifeforms (plants, fungus, animals). The question isn't whether we should use/consume life, but which life we should use.Laihendi
Plenty of life forms exist that don't consume other lifeforms.
Please provide examples.Most plants. a lot of bacteria, some fungi. You don't actually know how cells work, do you?
So not only is Laihendi the worst would-be proponant of libertarianism I've ever seen, he also has the worst understanding of Tolkien I've ever seen.worlock77Aside from the inherent silliness of this discussion I do have to say that advocating the view that babies are nothing but property is actually one of the most morally degenerative arguments I've seen on this board. The fact he was saying babies and dogs have similar rights in a thread about beastiality has some rather horrific implications.
It's not the desire of power in general, but the desire of power that they have no right to that makes claiming the ring wrong.Laihendi
I don't know if that's what Tolkein was saying. He kept stating in letters things like:
"You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power. But that is only because all power magical or mechanical does always so work. You cannot write a story about an apparently simple magic ring without that bursting in, if you really take the ring seriously, and make things happen that would happen, if such a thing existed."
and "Power is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except as applied to the gods"
Although following your interpretation, you'd probably need to add '...and nobody but the gods have the right to unmoderated power, since that kind of power inevitably leads you to tyranny'? And at that point, he might as well be saying 'the desire for great power is inherently bad'.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]So not only is Laihendi the worst would-be proponant of libertarianism I've ever seen, he also has the worst understanding of Tolkien I've ever seen.Ace6301Aside from the inherent silliness of this discussion I do have to say that advocating the view that babies are nothing but property is actually one of the most morally degenerative arguments I've seen on this board. The fact he was saying babies and dogs have similar rights in a thread about beastiality has some rather horrific implications. Due to a growing sense of apathy about real-world issues, I've taken a leave of absence from OT to spend time in System Wars, where I stand less of a chance of being out-argued and people can be idiots about things that don't matter, as opposed to things that do matter. I get the distinct impression that I have missed something crazy.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="worlock77"]So not only is Laihendi the worst would-be proponant of libertarianism I've ever seen, he also has the worst understanding of Tolkien I've ever seen.PannicAtackAside from the inherent silliness of this discussion I do have to say that advocating the view that babies are nothing but property is actually one of the most morally degenerative arguments I've seen on this board. The fact he was saying babies and dogs have similar rights in a thread about beastiality has some rather horrific implications. Due to a growing sense of apathy about real-world issues, I've taken a leave of absence from OT to spend time in System Wars, where I stand less of a chance of being out-argued and people can be idiots about things that don't matter, as opposed to things that do matter. I get the distinct impression that I have missed something crazy. Lai believes that people who cannot comprehend rights are not entitled to the rights they are incapable of comprehending. As such he believes that babies are just property. The issue arises in that he had claimed beastiality is fine because it's just an owner having sex with a piece of their property. You can probably see where the horrible fridge logic comes in. Also being completely apathetic to real-world issues is pretty great. It just becomes another fiction thing to talk about in a similar way to how someone would talk about video games or books.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Aside from the inherent silliness of this discussion I do have to say that advocating the view that babies are nothing but property is actually one of the most morally degenerative arguments I've seen on this board. The fact he was saying babies and dogs have similar rights in a thread about beastiality has some rather horrific implications. Ace6301Due to a growing sense of apathy about real-world issues, I've taken a leave of absence from OT to spend time in System Wars, where I stand less of a chance of being out-argued and people can be idiots about things that don't matter, as opposed to things that do matter. I get the distinct impression that I have missed something crazy. Lai believes that people who cannot comprehend rights are not entitled to the rights they are incapable of comprehending. As such he believes that babies are just property. The issue arises in that he had claimed beastiality is fine because it's just an owner having sex with a piece of their property. You can probably see where the horrible fridge logic comes in. Also being completely apathetic to real-world issues is pretty great. It just becomes another fiction thing to talk about in a similar way to how someone would talk about video games or books. True, but I'm honestly more interested in the politics of Westeros...
And blimey, that is hilariously awful.
So not only is Laihendi the worst would-be proponant of libertarianism I've ever seen, he also has the worst understanding of Tolkien I've ever seen.worlock77also plants
Every president after Grover Cleveland should have been impeached for some reason or another. The issue is, what the hell makes you think his replacement would be any better?famicommanderYou're right, they are all owned by the same people so replacing him would just net us with another copycat who kneels to the big corporations. Obama in my opinion is nothing more then just an image to keep the people happy, and he has sh!t all over the constitution left and right.
If the American people want true change they need to pull their head out of their asses and make real changes to the political system.
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Intentions do not determine whether a specific action is rational. If Sauron was rational then he would have known that he had no right to rule middle-earth, and that therefore if he established himself as a threat to the free people then they would destroy him. The same for Saruman. Isildur was irrational for believing he could master the ring. None of these characters exhibit rational self-interest.Laihendiwhat rational simply means they are capable of following a valid logical process they are not irrational simply because they share different normative values than you doMy ethical principles are rational, therefore any ethical principles that contradict my own are irrational. The consequences of the actions made by Sauron, Saruman, and Isildur demonstrates that they were not following a valid logical process.
No, you think your ethical principles are rational.
So, seventeen pages into the thread and the TC has yet to actually name what charges he thinks Obama should be impeached on.PannicAtack
- He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive ordersto curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment.
- He has aided Americas enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who arebeing commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
- He has violated federal law byoverseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government.
- He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens.The cover-up has been called Obamas Watergate,yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.
- He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. I dont even have to get to the Constitutional question,said Obama.This is an act that constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,according to Congressman Walter Jones.
- He has flagrantly violated article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution by accepting rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council. The clause states, No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
- He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.
- He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration thatspecifically demandedthese powers be included in the final NDAA bill.
- He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy health insurance,a clear violation of the Constitutionin exceeding congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed out preferential waivers to corporationsfriendly to his administration.
- He has declared war on Americas coal industry bypromising to bankrupt any companythat attempts to build a new coal plant while usingunconstitutional EPA regulationsto strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.
- He has violated the Constitutions Takings and Due Process Clauses when hebullied the secured creditors of automaker Chryslerinto accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
Read more here and here if you want to learn more
LISTLLYNCES
Im not even from the US and I can tackle a few of these without looking things up.
"- He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive ordersto curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment."
"- He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order."
Can you be impeached on an intent? Even when the executive orders he ended up issuing didn't involve much curtail-ing? And when the orders he may end up issuing could be 100% fine by the Constitution?
"- He has flagrantly violated article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution by accepting rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council. The clause states, No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Would the UN count as a foreign State? Seems more like a state-less international organisation to me.
"- He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus"
The Act expressly and very specifically states, multiple times, that these powers aren't to be used on US citizens.
Meanwhile, it seems like a lot of the commerce ones are more borderline cases that could go either way.
And even if an Executive Order turns out to be unconstitutional, since when is that the basis to impeach the President? How would that make any sense?
The Constitution is always open to interpretation by the Supreme Court, the scope of the powers under it are always ambiguous, and it'd be utterly crazy if one tiny mistake (or more) was enough to impeach the President. Don't they have to be committing criminal acts, or something similar?
Very few threads are worth reading post by post. This is one of them.
Based on the arguments, I think Laihendi went right for the Longbottom Leaf, rather than understand the intricacies of Middle Earth.
i'm not entirely sure you know how our system of government works[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="LLYNCES"] *snip massive list*worlock77
He cited InfoWars as one of his sources, so probably not.
Welp, we know what that means.Please provide examples.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]
Plenty of life forms exist that don't consume other lifeforms.
Guybrush_3
Most plants. a lot of bacteria, some fungi. You don't actually know how cells work, do you?
Humans are not plants, bacteria, fungi, etc. Humans must consume life in order to sustain their own. Again, that means the question isn't whether we should use for our own benefit, but of which life we should use.@Ace6301 - What is the criteria for entitlement to rights? Does a mosquito have a right to life? Does a tree have a right to life? You have no consistent criteria. Your values and judgments are completely arbitrary. And again you are proving that you simply do not understand my arguments, because I have not said that babies have similar rights to dogs. I have said that rights are not relevant to either of them because neither of them are capable of conceptualizing rights. That is the same reason that a tree does not have rights, or a rock, or a mosquito.
Do you believe we have the right to keep animals as pets, or to cage them their entire lives, using them as beasts of burden or killing the to consume them? If so, why? We don't necessarily have a right to animals, but we can. Most animals are incapable of conceptualizing rights, and are therefore not entitled to them. A horse is incapable of conceptualizing rights, therefore it has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit, just as a tree is incapable of conceptualizing rights and therefore has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]You think it's rational for someone to claim to have a right to make others his slaves because he is "far above them"? That reflects very poorly on you, and undermines your credibility in a discussion of ethics. No it is not rational to enslave others. No one has a legitimate claim to enslave anyone. And as I have said many times before, the only people entitled to rights are those capable of conceptualizing rights. An intelligent, self-aware, critically thinking individual is in no way comparable to an infant.Laihendi
A baby can't conceptualize rights, a retarded person can't conceptualize rights, mentally deranged people cannot.
Do none of these people have rights? Because according to that idiotic argument you just put forward, they do not.
We don't necessarily have a right to animals, but we can. Most animals are incapable of conceptualizing rights, and are therefore not entitled to them. A horse is incapable of conceptualizing rights, therefore it has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit, just as a tree is incapable of conceptualizing rights and therefore has no rights and there is nothing wrong with someone using it to his benefit.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"] Do you believe we have the right to keep animals as pets, or to cage them their entire lives, using them as beasts of burden or killing the to consume them? If so, why?Squeets
A baby can't conceptualize rights, a retarded person can't conceptualize rights, mentally deranged people cannot.
Do none of these people have rights? Because according to that idiotic argument you just put forward, they do not.
Again, anyone who is incapable of conceptualizing rights does not have rights. If a man does not even understand what rights are, then how can he possible have them? For example, an infant has no conception of what it means to own property, is therefore incapable of owning property, and therefore does not have a right to own property, because the concept of property rights is irrelevant to him. Please explain how my argument is idiotic. Please use reason, logic, rationale, etc. Please do better than resorting to petty insults. Also please explain which lifeforms are entitled to rights, and why.Again, anyone who is incapable of conceptualizing rights does not have rights. If a man does not even understand what rights are, then how can he possible have them? For example, an infant has no conception of what it means to own property, is therefore incapable of owning property, and therefore does not have a right to own property, because the concept of property rights is irrelevant to him. Please explain how my argument is idiotic. Please use reason, logic, rationale, etc. Please do better than resorting to petty insults. Also please explain which lifeforms are entitled to rights, and why.LaihendiThis is so stupid. Considering you are someone who worships the Constitution I would think you would just go by what it says when it guarantees those rights for ALL Americans. Just because someone is unaware of something doesn't invalidate it to them. This is basic stuff and the fact that you need it explained to you is mindboggling. Rights aren't magical rules governed by "natural law", they're concepts and things guaranteed to EVERYONE, regardless if they're aware of it or not. The implications of you thinking babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights because they don't understand them is sickening and borderline sociopathic.
This is so stupid. Considering you are someone who worships the Constitution I would think you would just go by what it says when it guarantees those rights for ALL Americans. Just because someone is unaware of something doesn't invalidate it to them. This is basic stuff and the fact that you need it explained to you is mindboggling. Rights aren't magical rules governed by "natural law", they're concepts and things guaranteed to EVERYONE, regardless if they're aware of it or not. If this is so basic then it should not be difficult to explain. Which lifeforms are entitled to rights, and why? For those that are not entitled to rights - again, why?[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Again, anyone who is incapable of conceptualizing rights does not have rights. If a man does not even understand what rights are, then how can he possible have them? For example, an infant has no conception of what it means to own property, is therefore incapable of owning property, and therefore does not have a right to own property, because the concept of property rights is irrelevant to him. Please explain how my argument is idiotic. Please use reason, logic, rationale, etc. Please do better than resorting to petty insults. Also please explain which lifeforms are entitled to rights, and why.Aljosa23
This is so stupid. Considering you are someone who worships the Constitution I would think you would just go by what it says when it guarantees those rights for ALL Americans. Just because someone is unaware of something doesn't invalidate it to them. This is basic stuff and the fact that you need it explained to you is mindboggling. Rights aren't magical rules governed by "natural law", they're concepts and things guaranteed to EVERYONE, regardless if they're aware of it or not. The implications of you thinking babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights because they don't understand them is sickening and borderline sociopathic. Well..... He is a libertarian.......[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Again, anyone who is incapable of conceptualizing rights does not have rights. If a man does not even understand what rights are, then how can he possible have them? For example, an infant has no conception of what it means to own property, is therefore incapable of owning property, and therefore does not have a right to own property, because the concept of property rights is irrelevant to him. Please explain how my argument is idiotic. Please use reason, logic, rationale, etc. Please do better than resorting to petty insults. Also please explain which lifeforms are entitled to rights, and why.Aljosa23
If this is so basic then it should not be difficult to explain. Which lifeforms are entitled to rights, and why? For those that are not entitled to rights - again, why?LaihendiIt was just explained: whatever the Constitution, Bill of Rights or whatever document guarantees rights or other concepts similar to that says so, that's how it is. That's all there is to it.
In terms of your other question, animal rights DO exists. TheAnimal Enterprise Terrorism Act was strictly designed to protect animals and other lifeforms under it from humans hoping to endanger their well-being.
why is ability to conceptualize rights a necessary prerequisite to having them?AbbetenHmm.
Well..... He is a libertarian....... DroidPhysXThat's what confuses me. You'd think he would be for everyone having rights instead of just those who are able to "conceptualize" it. smh
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment