So you just didn’t realize what he was doing when you called me out on it?
Kant could at least use a syllogism, which is useful when you have to, you know, justify an assertion rather than just stating that “it is”?
What does it mean to be a skeptic of the intellect? If you are referring to the impossibility of intellectually “divining” right and wrong, I would consider that upholding the virtues of strict logic, and not falling victim of equivocation and hasty generalizations.
No. I know Spideynw’s position, but I don’t know yours. In that post of his I didn’t see anything that dismisses potentiality in realizing and thus being able to rationalize with other people to avoid conflict. Children can learn to rationalize with other people and someday they will not need a guardian. A mentally illed person can somebody realize rights being that they are human too and other people take care of people that can’t currently recognize rights. People try to guide them. But if a mentally ill person or a child is breaking into a persons house that owner has to right to stop them. If a dog or a completely rational person that knows what they are doing (breaking into a house) the owner has the right to stop them. Anyone of these creatures might listen. Even a dog might listen to, “HEY Stop it!”. Then good. But at any point this doesn’t happen and any one of these creatures are still coming and all talk has failed then the owner has the right to stop them.
aside from this, any other skepticism you may hold, I will not get into as that being your intention - to be skeptic and find a way to tear down any intellectual construct about this world no matter what the mind has contemplated upon in this world - no need to discuss further.
I don’t know if you re-read my original post you responded to here. I did an edit. sorry
Spideynw, please entertain us with your comprehensive doctrine of “parent’s rights”.
OK, I will concede your point.
But if I kill someone out of “self-defense”, is it wrong? Did I violate his or her supposed “right to life”?
If you agree that killing someone out of self-defense is not wrong, then you are saying the person that was killed did NOT have a right to life. However, on the other hand, you claim we all do have a right to life. So which is it?
Why? There is a whole other thread about it.
I never said right to life. I pointed out what each person has already, inherently. These are not what people try to get - they already possess these rights. They are negative (natural) as opposed to positive (legislated) rights. I thought you knew this.
We are just talking semantics. I just do not see it going anywhere.
You could, but it would be unlibertarian.
Non sequiturs.
Non sequitur. Non sequitur. Not required to have rights. See Block.
Worf woof woof ruff-ruff… Wor-roof wuf? Ruff arf-arf, bow-ruff…Governor Marley! A-OOOOOOO! A-OOOOOOO! (ruff ruff ruff) Bow-roo wuf rowwf-- --Arrooof-- --LeChuck! GRRRRRRRRR! Arf, oof-oof, Monkey Island™! sniff sniff
(from Secret of Monkey Island)
No it’s not, in this case why should one claim that rationality doesn’t play a part in the demarcation in rights? Because you feel it’s not the case. Then I guess all the years of AI researchers and neurologists and psychologists puzzling over the nature of cognition and self as identity are just wrong? Or maybe I’m extending the point beyond its limits, either way that’s how I interpret your response to theirs in terms of the demarcation of rights between humans and non-humans.
It doesn’t matter in this case what’s being suggested is that non-human animals of certain classifications have the same rights (not similar). Whether you’re bitching about Rothbardian interpretation or not, my argument is still within the scope and bounds of the thread at large (such as we’re talking about HUMAN RIGHTS APPLYING TO NON-HUMAN ANIMALS). So, why don’t you just admit that you don’t feel it’s not worth your time to argue over my pov, that’s fine. But to play any dishonest games of defining what kind of theory of rights or what particular branch we’re talking about is silly. So don’t do it, k (Hint: the OP DID NOT FRAME THE ARGUMENT BEYOND A SIMPLE QUESTION)?
link? Is there something you are embarrassed to say. It could be your idea that: since your own flesh and blood infant can not object to you using it as a sex toy, you can happily enjoy your children as sex toys. Don’t attempt to distance yourself from the implications of your blathering by stating it as some done and over with, widely accepted view it is not. It is humorous that you pretend to be a radical libertarian while expressing 18th century views on wives, children, and domestics. We’ll again ignore that your “theory” means it is okay to pick a sleeping man’s pocket, or stab him in the neck.
I don’t think the real issue is whether or not doing something is “ok.” The question is do (natural) rights exist? I would say no. If they do exist, do they protect the sleeping man? Observably, not.
Yes, you can. And someone may find out about it, and kill you, regardless of the legality.
My reasoning suggests no such thing. Refusing to ask for permission just because someone is sleeping, does not give one the right to do whatever he or she wants to another. Refusing to ask permission and being unable to ask permission are two completely different things.
Does biting your face off count as claiming their rights? Or do they need to speak in a language that you can understand?
No.
So then they need to speak your language in order for you to understand.
No. There has to be evidence to believe that they can reason and self-actualize.
Haha, here we go again,no?
My take on that is :
1.) rights are concepts to avoid or minimize conflicts between humans over scarce resources.
2.) self-ownership is human concept and aplies to humans
3.) humans can use their rational mind to agree on rights, animals might be able to do that as well within their own species but sure not between species.
4.) Unless we aim for extinction we should not engage in suicidal ideas regarding other species and their rights.
5.) Another question is what ethical views one has regarding animals and how to cope with them.