I pointed out it’s not ‘nature’ doing the killing but the boat owner. For the last time : I shoot at you. You could dodge the bullet. You can’t ? Well, that’s because of the laws of nature, it’s not really my fault. I didn’t kill you.
I leave you in the middle of the ocean. Can you survive ? Of course not. But I didn’t kill you, ‘nature’ did. I could also beat you up. Maybe your injuries (and natural processes) will kill you, not me.
Perhaps even more important, I pointed out that you seem to be suggesting that since A ‘owns’ the boat he’s justified in asking B to leave thereby killing B. So, you think that B’s right to life is non-existent or overridden by A’s ownership of the boat, which means :
You’re a making a cheap legalistic argument, not even a correct argument based on natural law, while at the same time pretending that one ‘should’ not be ‘too reliant’ on law.
So, have fun. Such mess to refute the anti-abortionists ? Surely you shot yourself on the foot.
You’re assuming the person can’t survive in the ocean. You’re giving an absolute. It’s the same analogy as the “boyfriend-girlfriend” analogy.
Listen: There’s nothing I’d like better than to bring justice to an a-hole that would leave somebody out in the middle of the ocean. But you’ve got to think more about this. Give me something to go on. A clue - anything. I don’t know what is right or wrong in this scenario, though I’m inclined to think it’s legally ok. But I don’t know everything and you keep going on about “shooting in head”, etc… Clearly the person could live in the ocean - it’s possible. It’s not an absolute death sentence. So the only thing I can think of at this time is to “think outside the box” and go after this boat owner in a way that is non-coercive cause I can’t see how the law has been broken. Maybe I’m wrong - maybe - but you haven’t been able to provide a lead, nothing solid to go on other than denial.
I’m willing and waiting. I’m being open-minded. Let’s think about this. So far I see the ocean killing this person - possibly - but not absolutely.
This is a tough case to solve and I would rather have more heads than mine trying to figure it out.
If you think I’m invoking some ‘positive’ right to life you are mistaken. The negative property rights of the boat owner do not trump the negative right to life of his guests. That’s all. Besides, what can the boat owner do ? Politely ask his guest to leave ? Fine. The guest is not leaving. So what’s next ? The boat owner starts using violence ? Sounds like assault to me.
Bottom line seems to be that if you invite people to your boat you must face the consequences. Which has nothing to do with abortions =P
Right. People are not fish as far as I can tell - it’s human nature to not be able to survive on the ocean.
Of course, if the person could swim ten yards and reach the shore then the boat owner has only committed some kind of assault. But maybe he tossed off board somebody who couldn’t swim…oops - murder again.
Anyway, I’m assuming (reasonably) that abandoning someone on the ocean will lead to death. The boat owner is causing death. It’s a slower death than being shot, but it’s death nonetheless.
I provided correct analogies illustrating why your ‘nature did it’ defense is fallacious. I also told you that defending the property rights of the owner while claiming "There’s a lot more than reliance upon law " is contradictory.
You’re claiming I cannot use force to remove you from my property when you have refused to leave, else it would be assault?
I should back up a bit. I asked in an earlier post if the same holds true for a trespasser on the boat, one who was not invited and is not a guest. I should not liken your comments to positive rights until you answer that.
One thing. A friend doesn’t do this to a friend. So that’s a terrible, unreal scenario. A friend NEVER does that. A turncoat - yes - but not a friend.
So two people. One is either a trespasser. The other is coercing the once guest. These are two possibilities of what’s happening.
Also, people can swim so that’s not an issue. Now if the person can’t swim or if sharks, like walking the plank, are down below I inclined to think that’s murder. Also the indeterminate variables of survival tremendously increase with these questions:
How far can the person swim?
Is a known big wave storm coming (not talking about a drizzle)?
How far away from land?
No fresh water and/or food?
Other variables such as sharks (unless seen before the person is escorted off), a muscle pull causing the person not to be able to swim anymore, etc… These are chances that don’t readily limit the person. Cause these variables are the same as having a car wreck, attacked by a bear, etc… They appear to be accidental. Those other questions listed above are more determinable on the life of the person and could switch the blame on the boat owner.
I’d rather wait to see how Juan responds to the trespasser question and hold off on the positive rights issue as well.
Your reply doesn’t answer the question if someone can invite you on the boat and then make you leave in the middle of the ocean. The obvious answer is no and to admit that weakens your arguement.
I assume by the position you are taking that you think there will be 100% universal agreement on all subject matters? I have responded several times to you. We do not agree on the basic underlying assumptions for humanity. You believe there is no connection between sex and reproduction. You believe that people do not have to be responsible for actions they make that have the potential to harm other people in their care.
You believe parents can take their children can leave their children in the middle of the desert to die because they have no responsibility to care for them.
You have no coherent definition of when human life starts. You view the unborn child as a parasite with no rights even when the parents willingly created the child to begin with.
I understand your position. We can not possibly agree.
Then presumably they can be terminated when one party no longer volunteers…like in the middle of the ocean. At which point if you agree with me then the boat owner can no longer act as he chooses but is compelled to not force the person off the boat. At that point the invited guest has as much right to the boat as the boat owner.
Forget official contracts detaling this…just two people out on a boat for a day trip…and we still come to the same conclusion.
Your right Juan, when you take someone under your care you are obligated to see it through, you can’t change your mind midstream and throw them overboard and say I didn’t kill them it was the ocean. Thank you for making my point you can’t just kill people because they are on your property.