 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
What the frig is mamram?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
sounds like the right thing for him
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
BTW, I've got no big thing against the libertarian viewpoint (heck I'm probably a watered down one, myself). The whole debate doesn't even interest me that much. What interests me FAR MORE are issues of strength of character. (I haven't screwed with you are Wraith or Rex, cause my interest is more in the moral courage issue than the abstract philospohical issue.) |
I guarantee you Wraith and Rex and others would have very similiar viewpoints to my own.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
What you mean is that they aren't as vocal in opposition to an institution (involuntary servitude) that you seem to cherish.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
The draft is indeed a form of slavery. Why the hell should the state be able to force one to kill or die without having one's moral consent? It's a dangerous institution, and has no place in a free society. |
If you morally disagree you are free to live in another place.
Plus, Israel is quite considerate and does not obligate the arab minority to serve, so that not to force them into moral conflicts.
quote:
Regarding "natural rights," I hardly see any justification for such a thing existing (unless you use some kind of theological rationalization). Rights are provided by governments, not nature. |
quote:
Come now. Buying up feudal fiefs and kicking the peasants off of the land their families have lived on for centuries doesn't sound a wee bit like theft to you?  |
Now now, that's inaccurate.
We bought the lands but
1) For the most part, the peasants stayed there and worked for us.
2) The rest, as I discovered, were quite nicely compensated. I have a letter from that time by a Zionist thinker, talking exactly about this, whether this constitutes stealing or disenfranchising. He mentions that Jews gave the Arabs very nice fees. His ultimate conclusion though, is different from mine, and he fears that even after all of this, the arabs are disenfranchised since they become people without a land, as Jews were.
I think that as long as we paid them like we did, sometimes more than our legal responsability, there's nothing illegal about it.
quote:
When did the UN "allocate" Palestinian private property to Israelis?  Bringing people under the control of a gov't doesn't imply taking their land. |
It depends.
Did the Indians voluntarily sell all of America to the immigrants?
Did the Mexicans sell their property to the American conqueror?
No!
Governments have laws which enable them to take over lands which are privately owned, for the state's best interest.
It's used mainly in wars and such.
And btw, except for agricultural areas, which are nationalized, Israel rarely did take over private property of arabs who stayed in 1948.
quote:
Yep, instead of getting the hell out of the battlezone, they should've sat tight so they could get caught up in the fire-fight between the two sides, if something like Deir Yassin didn't happen to their village first.  |
1. They chose to leave. Their problem. Except for some villages, noone pointed a gun at them, threatening them out.
If anyone is guilty for the refugees, it's the Arabs who started the war, causing the residents to flee.
2. Deir Yassin wasn't a massacare but a showdown between conflicting armies, during which, Israeli forces did commit some atrocities, but certainly not on the scale you claim.
It was for the most part, a military battle between armed Jews and armed Arabs. Due to some Arab fighters dressing up as women (as they still do), Jews began shooting at suspicious women as well, and for a while, at anyone in sight.
But it wasnt' a massacare, since many were not killed, and a great deal of palestinains were allowed to flee and even transported from the village in advance by the Israelis.
This is one of the rare examples of initiated transport, that was employed due to tactical needs - Deir Yassin was overlooking areas that controlled the road to Jerusalem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Eli -
I may not know every iota of Palestinian/Israeli history, but I do know land was stolen from Palestinians by Israelis. I don't think Palestinians would be committing suicide to blow Israelis up if your opinion was valid.
|
"The Nazis wouldn't be comitting to murder Jews if Jews were not guilty of something"
Propoganda and re-education works wonders.
read:
www.pmw.org.il
www.memri.org
www.edume.org
www.imra.org
quote:
And he found a gene that made Neandertals not defend themselves? Yeah right... |
No, he found a gene that related to the "self sacrifice" ability, which was lacking in the neandertals.
Your arguement is not with me. This scientist worked completely unrelated to our discussion, and I just happenned to have watched a short piece of a show about him on russian TV.
quote:
Only when they start substituting speculations for facts. Or was that you who did that? |
Tsk tsk tsk.
Were those speculations that lead Russians into orbit before Americans?
Were those speculations that allowed them to have a first manned space station?
quote:
"Rephrasal"? Where did David say government should protect him without his support? |
He expects full civil rights from his country.
This includes protection of his right for life and security.
quote:
With his consent and support. Did he say otherwise? |
So it's a case based contract?
Each time you look what you gain from the contract and decide whether to follow it?
quote:
He didn't say that, he opposed the draft. The draft forces others to risk their lives for the security of others. |
Which is the contract which people in Israel accept with their civilian rights.
Since Israel is an extremely small country, it must have a regular army, and it must have all the population army ready.
quote:
You don't need any explanation for why other people are asking or forcing you to kill others? |
I don't take the habbit of locking myself in dark basements so that I don't know what and why am I fighting for.
quote:
And until you can prove he expects others to defend him without his support, your claims about him are meaningless. |
He expects others to defend him since he expects full civil rights, which include his protection. Who will come to protect him, if not other people.
quote:
So if you steal someone's land and they fight back, your theft is irrelevant? |
First you stop the fighting
Then you give back the land.
WWI - WWII should have taught you that.
quote:
Did the Germans start WW!? Did they agree to the Versailles Treaty? If the answer to both is "no", then they may have had a valid claim. Whats your point? |
Irrelevant of both of your conditions, the Germans were abused in the Versailles treaty and forced into it.
And they had a valid claim.
My point, is that their claims shouldn't have been satisfied while under such an evil regime, as this appeasal only promoted more German agression.
quote:
Land "allocated" by the UN is theft. Are you now suggesting a group of foreigners have the moral authority to give away your land? |
Well then let's discuss the legitimacy of the UN in general.
quote:
And those lands "conquered" by Israelis belonged to others, the fact the owners ran off when a war began doesn't justify the winner of that war keeping those lands. |
Then I suggest you return your house back to the native americans, those which your fore fathers hasn't slain.
quote:
If two people walked onto your property, and you got your family out of the way, the winner of that fight would not have a legitimate claim to your land. |
You can't compare nation wide conflicts with personal ones.
There is an authority to decide upon law within a country - the state laws and court system.
There isn't such a system in the international community, and you've just delegitimized the closest thing to it - the UN.
quote:
Is that why the Israelis won't accept the "right of return"? Isn't that the Palestinian condition for peace giving Arabs who fled their property during those wars the right to return to their land? |
The option of return for 4+ million palestinians to now Israel, will be devestating for Israel, as that population is both hostile and foreign and will destroy Israel as it is now, and will probably destroy it in general.
quote:
So the Nazis should not be condemned for murdering millions of people, but for violating some international agreement? Did the Nazis sign some treaty with the world in which they agreed not to murder millions of their own people? |
It doesn't have to be a national treaty.
The fact that after the fact, nations of the world gathered and decided upon a punishment, makes it binding enough. This is the point - laws come as agreements within societies.
No laws outside such agreements exist.
quote:
Our laws are not valid in Germany or any other country. |
So you do agree that laws are always society dependant?
quote:
The violation of natural rights neither negate them nor guarantee punishment of the perpetrators. You guys don't know what a "right" is, rights are moral/just claims made by individuals on their own behalf. Being murdered doesn't mean you never had the right to live, only that somebody violated your right to live. Do you have a moral or just claim to exist? That is called a "natural right"... |
It is completely idiotic.
Who exactly granted a lonely idiot in the desert any rights?
Rights are privilages / services granted by a society, conditioned upon agreement of the society over those rights.
There are no natural rights or duties.
Claims are claims - not rights. And who's to say what are "moral" and "just" claims?
The definition of such words and such rights, therefore, comes from a concensus which is society dependant.
No higher being granted us any "rights".
quote:
Lol, my argument doesn't pertain to any current society, you guys are the ones claiming rights are societal constructs which makes those rights dependent on the current society. Your only reason for condemning the Nazis was that they allegedly violated some international agreement. Do you know how intellectually vapid that sounds? I condemn them for murdering people and you condemn them for violating some agreement you claim they made with other nations. If they never made this agreement, would that mean your reason for condemning the Nazis becomes invalid? |
You live in your own Disney world in which some higher diety gave everyone natural rights, according to moral standards, which obviously the deity set out, since they are not society dependant.
The very claim that morality is detached from the society in which it resides is stupid.
quote:
I didn't make this "assumption", I concluded they were smarter than "notyoueither". And I reached that conclusion after reading his arguments and the Founders' arguments... |
And I should consider you an authority capable of making such conclusions?
quote:
You think modern politicians do only what the majority wants? |
Depends on the country. In some countries they do what they want themselves.
quote:
Claiming what the Saudis do is "natural" is illogical, prove these actions are natural. |
Prove that they aren't.
You can't.
Because you imagine society is ruled by "divine" (or "natural") laws that imminate from nature and are a priori to our concious or society.
quote:
You were the one who condemned the Nazis for allegedly violating some international agreement, not me. And as I have repeatedly said in this thread, the fact you might murder someone doesn't mean the victim never had a natural right - a moral claim - to exist. |
Who made that natural right?
Prove it?
Base it?
You can't.
Because you assume it.
quote:
And I asked for examples of these rights, just repeating what notyoueither claimed doesn't prove his/your proposition. |
Fine.
The right of freedom of expression could potencially ruin society by allowing people to spread lies and cause mass panic and confusion leading to even civil wars.
quote:
States and their bureacrats don't have rights, they have powers. And in a free society, those powers must be based on those rights we do have. So, how does authorising a policeman to protect you from murder negate or limit your right to live? |
It gives that policeman the authority to limit another person's right to life or freedom, if he is a menace to society - and actively persues attempts to stop your right to live.
Meaning - you allow the policeman to use his judgement (in accordance to the law) to kill / arrest fellons which are risking you.
This of course limits and endangers your rights, but on the other hand, you create a centralised and monitored apparatus for observing and enforcing the law.
quote:
Freedom doesn't include slander because slander is a fraudulent act. When the Founders spoke of freedom, they weren't telling us we were free to hurt others. |
You spoke with them so you know?
quote:
Not if I never agreed to keep those secrets. |
It's not a question of you agree or not agree.
If you happen to learn a state secret, crucial for the safety of the USA, the USA has power and legitimacy to limit you from spreading it. Whether it is just to do so, depends on the case.
quote:
So what? The fact some people have forced others to die for their security doesn't make their actions moral. |
Again, you assume morality as something a-priori. I ask you to prove why.
quote:
I don't make my judgements about morality based on what some foreigner thinks. Do you? |
Certainly not.
But you believe that the morals you believe in are both a priori and omni potent and retro effective.
Therefore, you're now condradicting with your quote, since you ask me and my country to conform with your morals, which you happen to believe are the ultimate ones.
quote:
Even if the law enforcers and those they are defending stole land from those resisting the theft? |
You should learn to differentiate legitimacy from ultimate justice.
Ultimate justice is hard to apply, mainly since we usually don't know all the facts at a given time.
Therefore we first use legitimacy laws, and then try to construct a picture of justice in court.
While I resent "theft" as a description, I agree that the palestinians deserve a state in the 1967 occupied terrotories.
Absolute justice would ask for the countries to become one big "Palestine/Israel". But realistically that's impossible.
quote:
But forcing others to die for my security is natural? |
Of course.
If someone shoots at you, no matter why, you are legitimate to shoot back. Whether you are just is another thing.
It is legitimate for palestinains to resist IDF incursions. Whether it is just, is dependant on a person's view. I think it isn't, you probably think it is.
It is illegitimate for palestinains to target Israeli civilians. Period.
quote:
So you don't have a right to exist if your society decided to murder you? The Nazis thought so too... |
Exactly my point.
The whole point is that the rest of the world decided differently.
quote:
I don't have a right to be protected from the desert. |
According to you - you do.
You have a right to life and euqality.
Why is it that the desert makes you die of thirst while the rest don't die?
quote:
The fact two people - one an atheist, the other a believer - agree that murder is immoral doesn't mean the atheist is religious. |
But that's the whole point - morality is based upon consensus of society - currently two people.
There is no "higher moral".
And such "higher moral" often justified much worse things than people with local morals.
The whole problem erupts when people do not understand that their morals are not "natural" but rather agreed upon.
Just because Germans agreed to murder jews, doesn't make it natural. It is because they thought their moral was superior that the crime was hideous to such an extent.
And just because you think it's wrong to murder jews, doesn't make it natural too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker
Not nature per se, but existence. A natural right - as opposed to a civil right (which is created thru government) - is a moral or just claim to act. The natural right to live derives from the fact we didn't create each other, but were created by someone or something else. Some would call this "creator" "God", others call it "nature", but it doesn't matter who or what created us, only that we didn't create each other. Those who claim these natural rights don't exist but that rights were created by government must explain why you would condemn the Nazis for murdering people. [/qoute]
It is exactly becase no set of rights is "superior" that I can condemn the Nazis.
What would have happenned if they somehow proved it is their morals are superior?
quote:
Sirotnikov says he condemns the Nazis because they violated international agreements but can't produce the contracts. If you have a right to live only because your government says you have this right, then what if the government says you don't have the right to live and murders you? I'd condemn this government for violating your natural right to live. |
Because you think I have one, and most of the world agrees.
Not because it's some a priori right.
quote:
Why would you condemn the government for murdering people if the culprit claimed the victims had no right to live? |
Because your morals suggest that it is wrong, and you know that their morals aren't necessarily better than yours.
quote:
Why would you condemn me and my friends for murdering others? If "government" says you have no right to live, why can't we? Is not "government" nothing more than a group of people? If a group of people can decide if you have a right to live, why not any group? |
Exactly.
Any group can decide upon it's morals, as usually happens, only that most groups do not involve in matters which contradict more important things like right of life, freedom etc.
It is exactly because no moral set can be claimed to be "natural" that I can condemn anyone else for doing something against my own morals.
And technically (and IMO morally) I can attempt to convince society of my morals.
Last edited by Sirotnikov on 16-04-2002 at 05:42
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
Why is it I just can't get arsed to write on one of my favourite topics here? Is it because I'd be ignored or is it because it's totally pointless to talk to mòst of these posters? Discuss.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Slowhand - quote:
You might as well argue with a post, Berz. |
Nice to see you back, Slow 
Ramo - quote:
If there is no creator, how can there be a gift? |
How did life begin? If you say "abiogenesis", then who or what created the elements and environment for abiogenesis? Even if we exclude a theological creator, we're still faced with the fact that we didn't create each other. And that still means we don't have the moral authority to deny what was given to us - life.
quote:
I don't believe in a "creator" that created life for some purpose. |
You don't have to. I don't know who or what created life, but I do know I didn't create you. That exempts you from my will...
quote:
Why should their wishes be less important than some being (or whatever) who designed the first life on Earth. |
There wishes may well be important, but without the creation of life, neither they nor you would exist.
quote:
AFAIK, there's nothing in quantum mechanical, thermodyanamical, etc. theories that assert the existence of a "gift" of "natural rights." |
Isn't your existence self-evident? Is it not also self-evident that I did not create you? What physical law says I did create you? Remember, natural rights are based on the moral claim you have to "own" yourself because other people did not create you.
quote:
Huh? So if I create some rudimentary form of life that eventually leads to intelligent life, I have morally authority over it? |
Yup. But morality requires consistency, if you have moral authority over the life you created, then you are subject to the same moral authority of that which created you.
quote:
It's the basis of my moral system. There is no "why." |
You can't explain why you consider something immoral? Then how did you arrive at your conclusion that it was immoral?
quote:
I haven't read Siro's posts, but asserting the lack of existence of natural rights is not equivalent to asserting the lack of existence of the concept of rights within one's moral system. |
I never said he or anyone else did not have a system for defining rights, only that the inability to explain why these right exist or offering inconsistent/illogical arguments to support them is a problem.
quote:
Yes. According to my moral code. |
But you can't explain why? Try.
Because you can't explain why mass murder violates your moral code.
quote:
No, the principle of natural rights simply adds a layer of unnecessary baggage. You might as well ask why are natural rights moral. |
Adds a layer of baggage? You can't even apply one layer. All you've done is claim mass murder violates your morality, why?
quote:
Moral authority is not inherently derived from government dictates. The idea of ownership is. |
So where does moral authority derive from? And if no government existed, you wouldn't consider yourself "owned" by you? What if someone enslaved you?
quote:
But it cannot be natural if it is tied to morality. |
Why? You don't naturally own yourself? Is it not immoral for me to enslave you?
GP - quote:
Read James Webb (yes...find out who that is. Even if you disagree with him, he will interest you.) |
Former Secy of the Navy (or asst secy)?
quote:
See to make a conscious stand of this nature, shows you are still a member of this society and disagree on this point and are willing to make a sacrafice to show that. |
Why does one need to make this sacrifice to earn the respect of those trying to force you to kill or die for their security?
quote:
David, on the other hand seems to think that because he does not live in a reductionist libertarian fantasy, that he is justified in any rationalization/avoidance whatsoever. |
No, he is justified because he knows it is immoral to force the innocent to die for his security. Only those who are committing immoral acts will use rationalizations.
quote:
I'm sure he could use the same justification for cheating on his taxes. |
Depends on the tax. The income tax? Yes, he is justified in avoiding it.
quote:
David's got a lot of false pride*...and he cloaks himself in a philosophy...and dreams Walter Mitty dreams. |
The moral dream, the immoral rationalize.
quote:
I mess with Eli and Imran and David because I feel enough "fondness" for them to want to see them grow up a little more. |
Give 'em time, they are still youngsters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
If you morally disagree you are free to live in another place. |
Bullshit! You can justify just about anything with that.
quote:
Plus, Israel is quite considerate and does not obligate the arab minority to serve, so that not to force them into moral conflicts. |
While Israeli society holds military service as a prerequisite to get anywhere. It's not quite as considerate as it sounds.
And that doesn't justify conscription of non-Arabs.
You want to fight for you country, fine, but don't force others who may also have moral conflicts with being in the armed services.
quote:
Now now, that's inaccurate.
We bought the lands but
1) For the most part, the peasants stayed there and worked for us. |
That's probably true.
quote:
2) The rest, as I discovered, were quite nicely compensated. I have a letter from that time by a Zionist thinker, talking exactly about this, whether this constitutes stealing or disenfranchising. He mentions that Jews gave the Arabs very nice fees. His ultimate conclusion though, is different from mine, and he fears that even after all of this, the arabs are disenfranchised since they become people without a land, as Jews were. |
Do you have a source?
quote:
I think that as long as we paid them like we did, sometimes more than our legal responsability, there's nothing illegal about it. |
There was hardly any legal responsibility for peasants in the Ottoman Empire, particularly after the Ottoman Land Code of 1858. Feudal lords could dispossessed peasants of their land without any legal hassle...
No, it doesn't. If A implies B, A can't be true while B is false.
quote:
Did the Indians voluntarily sell all of America to the immigrants?
Did the Mexicans sell their property to the American conqueror?
No!
Governments have laws which enable them to take over lands which are privately owned, for the state's best interest.
It's used mainly in wars and such.
And btw, except for agricultural areas, which are nationalized, Israel rarely did take over private property of arabs who stayed in 1948. |
That's not a justification...
quote:
1. They chose to leave. Their problem. Except for some villages, noone pointed a gun at them, threatening them out.
If anyone is guilty for the refugees, it's the Arabs who started the war, causing the residents to flee. |
You'd rather have them killed? Would you stay in your home, if it was a likely battlefield? Their problem, my arse.
quote:
2. Deir Yassin wasn't a massacare but a showdown between conflicting armies, |
Source?
quote:
during which, Israeli forces did commit some atrocities, but certainly not on the scale you claim. |
I don't think I posted any numbers, but IIRC, the body count was near 250, around half of whom were women and children.
quote:
It was for the most part, a military battle between armed Jews and armed Arabs. Due to some Arab fighters dressing up as women (as they still do), Jews began shooting at suspicious women as well, and for a while, at anyone in sight. |
Source?
quote:
But it wasnt' a massacare, since many were not killed, |
quote:
and a great deal of palestinains were allowed to flee and even transported from the village in advance by the Israelis.
This is one of the rare examples of initiated transport, that was employed due to tactical needs - Deir Yassin was overlooking areas that controlled the road to Jerusalem. |
And were these villagers allowed back into their land after the war?
quote:
How did life begin? If you say "abiogenesis", then who or what created the elements and environment for abiogenesis? Even if we exclude a theological creator, we're still faced with the fact that we didn't create each other. |
Assuming there is a "God," he would be the last thing I would give moral authority. My morality is not tied to whomever or whatever has power over me (hence my politics).
quote:
And that still means we don't have the moral authority to deny what was given to us - life. |
Why?
quote:
You don't have to. I don't know who or what created life, but I do know I didn't create you. |
If you created life, why should you have moral authority over me?
quote:
That exempts you from my will... |
Why?
quote:
There wishes may well be important, but without the creation of life, neither they nor you would exist. |
Without my parents, I wouldn't exist. That seems more relevant to me than some "God" (if He exists) that created the first proteins and RNA; if He didn't do it, nature would have anyways.
quote:
Isn't your existence self-evident? |
No. I could be some computer program. Who could tell?
quote:
Is it not also self-evident that I did not create you? |
No. You could be God talking to me about politics on a forum about a computer game. It isn't impossible.
quote:
Remember, natural rights are based on the moral claim you have to "own" yourself because other people did not create you. |
What's the logic behind this assertion?
Why?
quote:
But morality requires consistency, if you have moral authority over the life you created, then you are subject to the same moral authority of that which created you. |
I don't see why, if God exists, He created me, but my parents didn't. What about the first specimen of homo sapiens sapiens? Would he have moral authority over me? What's the real distinction between "creation" and what you call "conception?"
If God was created by someone else, would God still have created me?
quote:
You can't explain why you consider something immoral? Then how did you arrive at your conclusion that it was immoral? |
The initial step to anarchism was based on utilitarianism, but I've dropped that moral basis in favor of a more anarchist one. There isn't a purely rational explanation for the change. It just happened. Call it faith.
quote:
I never said he or anyone else did not have a system for defining rights, only that the inability to explain why these right exist or offering inconsistent/illogical arguments to support them is a problem. |
There's nothing illogical or inconsistent in what I'm saying. I don't presume to have a magical system of rights that transcends the universe.
quote:
But you can't explain why? Try. |
Can't do it. Sorry.
quote:
Adds a layer of baggage? You can't even apply one layer. All you've done is claim mass murder violates your morality, why? |
Because it involves coercion of an extraordinary magnitude.
quote:
So where does moral authority derive from? |
The human mind.
quote:
And if no government existed, you wouldn't consider yourself "owned" by you? |
There's no such thing as ownership if there's no government.
quote:
What if someone enslaved you? |
Then he would own me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Sirotnikov - quote:
If you morally disagree you are free to live in another place. |
Being able to move doesn't make the draft moral.
quote:
Plus, Israel is quite considerate and does not obligate the arab minority to serve, so that not to force them into moral conflicts. |
But they do force you into conflicts.
quote:
"The Nazis wouldn't be comitting to murder Jews if Jews were not guilty of something" |
Comparing the Nazis to Palestinian bombers ignores that the Nazis murdered people out of hatred while Palestinians murder over stolen lands and abuse.
quote:
No, he found a gene that related to the "self sacrifice" ability, which was lacking in the neandertals. |
And science has found this gene? No, this guy is speculating... He didn't find a self-defense gene, this is BS.
quote:
Your arguement is not with me. This scientist worked completely unrelated to our discussion, and I just happenned to have watched a short piece of a show about him on russian TV. |
Of course it's unrelated, you brought it up, not me.
quote:
Tsk tsk tsk.
Were those speculations that lead Russians into orbit before Americans?
Were those speculations that allowed them to have a first manned space station? |
Equating space travel with speculations about genes allegedly preventing Neandertals putting up a unified defense is illogical. We don't even know why the Neandertals went extinct, yet this guy claims their genes were the culprit? Was cold fusion a fact simply because another American scientist discovered electricity?
quote:
He expects full civil rights from his country.
This includes protection of his right for life and security. |
And did he say he refused to support the local sheriff? I'm waiting for proof, not repeated claims asserting your original argument.
quote:
So it's a case based contract? |
Yup. If you say we have an obligation to act on someone else's behalf, a contract will show consent.
quote:
Each time you look what you gain from the contract and decide whether to follow it? |
That's what I do before signing a contract, don't you?
quote:
Which is the contract which people in Israel accept with their civilian rights. |
Is that a contract people signed, or just an obligation some people imposed on others? If they signed it, did small children also sign it?
quote:
Since Israel is an extremely small country, it must have a regular army, and it must have all the population army ready. |
You're not proving you have a contractual obligation to serve in the army, only that it might be a good reason.
quote:
I don't take the habbit of locking myself in dark basements so that I don't know what and why am I fighting for. |
So you don't ask "why" when others force you to fight and/or die for their security? "Just following orders" didn't save the Nazi underlings at Nuremburg.
quote:
First you stop the fighting
Then you give back the land. |
Then stop fighting and give the land back. Maybe that'll stop your opponents from fighting since they seem to be fighting to get their land back.
quote:
WWI - WWII should have taught you that. |
These wars taught me it is moral to kill people resisting my theft of their land? Hmm...they taught me the opposite...
quote:
He expects others to defend him since he expects full civil rights, which include his protection. Who will come to protect him, if not other people. |
So quote him saying he refuses to support the local sheriff.
quote:
Irrelevant of both of your conditions, the Germans were abused in the Versailles treaty and forced into it. |
But did they start WWI? I offered two questions, not one.
quote:
And they had a valid claim. |
Not if they were the aggressor in WWI. And it wasn't Austria and Poland that imposed Versailles upon them anyway so their claims weren't even germaine.
quote:
My point, is that their claims shouldn't have been satisfied while under such an evil regime, as this appeasal only promoted more German agression. |
If their claims were valid, the claims should have been resolved peacefully before the evil regime came to power. About 14 years went by between Versailles and Hitler.
quote:
Well then let's discuss the legitimacy of the UN in general. |
I did, the UN doesn't have the moral authority to hand me your property.
quote:
Then I suggest you return your house back to the native americans, those which your fore fathers hasn't slain. |
We've had this discussion before. If an Indian can provide proof his ancestors owned my land, I will return it to him. The fact is, most of the land here was not owned by anyone. Had I been around back then, I would have opposed stealing and keeping Indian land. Why do you try to justify the ongoing theft of land? Pointing to another's immorality to justify Israeli immorality is called a rationalization.
quote:
You can't compare nation wide conflicts with personal ones. |
Why not?
quote:
There is an authority to decide upon law within a country - the state laws and court system. |
Legalising theft doesn't make the theft moral. You keep jumping back and forth between individual countries and the world. If a majority of the rest of the world told Israelis they were being immoral and invaded Israel, would you accept their definition of morality?
quote:
There isn't such a system in the international community, and you've just delegitimized the closest thing to it - the UN. |
No, the UN delegitimized itself by assuming the moral authority to hand one people land stolen from another.
quote:
The option of return for 4+ million palestinians to now Israel, will be devestating for Israel, as that population is both hostile and foreign and will destroy Israel as it is now, and will probably destroy it in general. |
Then Israel isn't planning on giving the land back, true? So why claim you'll must stop the fighting before returning stolen lands?
quote:
It doesn't have to be a national treaty. |
But it does have to be an international treaty. You said the Nazis had some agreement with other nations not to murder Germans. They didn't. So upon what basis would you condemn the Nazis for murdering so many people within their own country and society?
quote:
The fact that after the fact, nations of the world gathered and decided upon a punishment, makes it binding enough. This is the point - laws come as agreements within societies. |
That punishment came after WWII and the repeated invasions of other nations, not because of what Germans were doing to Germans. And any punishment that came after WWII is irrelevant to your claim that the Nazis were punished for violating some fictional international agreement.
quote:
So you do agree that laws are always society dependant? |
Of course, I never said they weren't. We are talking about natural rights, not laws. If Nazi law allowed for the mass murder of Germans, why would you condemn the Nazis?
quote:
It is completely idiotic. |
You've offered this indictment before, but can't offer a logical explanation to refute natural rights. Claiming that the Nazis should have been condemned for murdering millions of Germans simply because they allegedly agreed with foreign nations not to murder these people is absurd. Would that mean the mass murder should not be condemned if foreign nations agreed with the slaughter?
quote:
Who exactly granted a lonely idiot in the desert any rights? |
Whomever or whatever created him. He's alive isn't he? Did you create him? Nope, so why do you have the moral authority to end his life?
quote:
Rights are privilages / services granted by a society, conditioned upon agreement of the society over those rights. |
So why would you condemn the Nazis for the mass murder of Germans?
quote:
There are no natural rights or duties. |
Then why would you defend yourself from an attacker?
quote:
Claims are claims - not rights. And who's to say what are "moral" and "just" claims? |
Natural rights are moral or just claims individuals have and make on their own behalf. Do you have a moral claim to live? If not, murdering you wouldn't be immoral, true?
quote:
The definition of such words and such rights, therefore, comes from a concensus which is society dependant. |
Then the majority has the moral authority to murder or enslave you and your family.
quote:
No higher being granted us any "rights". |
Did you create life? If not, who or what did? If you didn't create other humans, what moral claim do you have to impose upon them your will?
quote:
You live in your own Disney world in which some higher diety gave everyone natural rights, according to moral standards, which obviously the deity set out, since they are not society dependant. |
Can you quote me claiming this "deity" exists?
quote:
The very claim that morality is detached from the society in which it resides is stupid. |
So sacrificing thousands of people as the Aztecs did was moral because that was what their society did?
quote:
And I should consider you an authority capable of making such conclusions? |
I just refuted your strawman and you ignore the refutation? Take a poll ("consensus") - how many people here think the combined intellect of the Founders is inferior to notyoueither's intellect.
quote:
Depends on the country. In some countries they do what they want themselves. |
So your claim that politicians stopped doing what they wanted and doing what the majority wants (even in democracies) is wrong.
quote:
Prove that they aren't.
You can't. |
Sure I can, society doesn't have the moral authority to murder people because society did not create the victims. If society doesn't own you, it lacks the moral authority to take what does not belong to it.
quote:
Because you imagine society is ruled by "divine" (or "natural") laws that imminate from nature and are a priori to our concious or society. |
Wrong again, I never said society was ruled by anything.
quote:
Who made that natural right?
Prove it?
Base it?
You can't.
Because you assume it. |
Whomever or whatever created life. Since we didn't create each other, we don't have the moral authority to steal what was given to each of us.
quote:
Fine. The right of freedom of expression could potencially ruin society by allowing people to spread lies and cause mass panic and confusion leading to even civil wars. |
The freedom of speech doesn't include slander and fraud. Freedom has a specific meaning, it doesn't mean we can do whatever we want. I don't have the right to lie about others...
quote:
It gives that policeman the authority to limit another person's right to life or freedom, if he is a menace to society - and actively persues attempts to stop your right to live. |
What is a "menace" to society? A murderer? By definition, murderers have violated the freedom and life of their victim. Murder is not an act of freedom, therefore prohibiting murder doesn't violate anyone's freedom. The policeman's (courts) authority to stop or punish murderers stems from the victim's right to self-defense based on the victim's self-ownership - natural rights.
quote:
Meaning - you allow the policeman to use his judgement (in accordance to the law) to kill / arrest fellons which are risking you. |
"Risking" me? That's too vague. But so what? This policeman is acting morally on my behalf because I can act morally on my behalf, not because the majority decided I can act morally on my behalf. If this was up to the majority, slavery would be moral if the majority said so.
quote:
This of course limits and endangers your rights, but on the other hand, you create a centralised and monitored apparatus for observing and enforcing the law. |
Hiring a policeman to defend me doesn't limit my rights.
quote:
You spoke with them so you know? |
I've read their writings, ever hear of books? Sheesh.
quote:
It's not a question of you agree or not agree. |
Sure it is, it's called a contract.
quote:
If you happen to learn a state secret, crucial for the safety of the USA, the USA has power and legitimacy to limit you from spreading it. Whether it is just to do so, depends on the case. |
Why does it depend on the case?
quote:
Again, you assume morality as something a-priori. I ask you to prove why. |
I have proven it repeatedly, you are the one who cannot prove that morality is defined by a consensus within society. When I've cited crimes committed by societal majorities, you bring in fictional international agreements as if majorities in other countries now have the authority to define morality if the majority within a certain society doesn't define morality as you define it. So what if this international majority doesn't define morality as you define it?
Then explain why you condemn the Nazis, not for committing mass murder, but for violating some non-existent international agreement.
quote:
But you believe that the morals you believe in are both a priori and omni potent and retro effective. |
I do? When did I say morality as I define it rules the world?
quote:
Therefore, you're now condradicting with your quote, since you ask me and my country to conform with your morals, which you happen to believe are the ultimate ones. |
I don't accept morality based on what foreigners think, how did I contradict that? You were the one who claimed morality is defined by foreigners after claiming morality was defined by societal consensus. You jumped from the latter to the former when I brought up the Nazis which clearly refuted the "societal consensus" argument. The contradictions are in your arguments, not mine.
quote:
You should learn to differentiate legitimacy from ultimate justice. |
You should learn to answer questions, what do these have to do with my question?
quote:
Ultimate justice is hard to apply, mainly since we usually don't know all the facts at a given time. |
True, do we know for a fact that Israelis stole Arab land? Yup.
quote:
Therefore we first use legitimacy laws, and then try to construct a picture of justice in court. |
I'd call that evidence, legitimacy is a term describing the results of a successful search for truth.
quote:
While I resent "theft" as a description, I agree that the palestinians deserve a state in the 1967 occupied terrotories. |
Why do you resent "theft" as a description? If Israel has a legitimate claim to those lands, wouldn't giving them to Palestinians effectively be stealing them from the rightful Israeli owners?
quote:
Absolute justice would ask for the countries to become one big "Palestine/Israel". But realistically that's impossible. |
"Absolute" justice requires returning the land to it's rightful owners, not any "state" or country. But we agree that won't happen.
quote:
Of course.
If someone shoots at you, no matter why, you are legitimate to shoot back. Whether you are just is another thing.
It is legitimate for palestinains to resist IDF incursions. Whether it is just, is dependant on a person's view. I think it isn't, you probably think it is.
It is illegitimate for palestinains to target Israeli civilians. Period. |
This was my question:
quote:
But forcing others to die for my security is natural? |
Now explain what you just said has to do with my question.
quote:
Exactly my point.
The whole point is that the rest of the world decided differently |
Then "societal constructs" of rights and morality is meaningless, you believe the "world" defines morality. And the rest of the world didn't decide this, WWII didn't begin until after the Nazis invaded multiple countries. Furthermore, the rest of the world didn't accuse the Nazis of immorality for slaughtering people, perhaps a majority of the world decided their conduct was immoral. And that begs the question, if the majority in a society cannot define rights and morality, why can majorities in other societies define rights and morality throughout the world? What if this world majority decided you didn't have the moral right to live and murdered you, would their decision and act be moral? Nope.
quote:
According to you - you do. |
Oh really? Where did I say this?
quote:
You have a right to life and euqality.
Why is it that the desert makes you die of thirst while the rest don't die? |
I don't have a right to be exempt from death, I have a right to not be murdered. And don't introduce "equality" into this debate, you've got enough strawmen in here already.
quote:
But that's the whole point - morality is based upon consensus of society - currently two people. |
That's your argument, not mine. And your argument puts you in the position of defending crimes committed by the majority as moral if the majority says it's moral.
quote:
There is no "higher moral". |
Repeating the same claim isn't proof.
quote:
And such "higher moral" often justified much worse things than people with local morals. |
Explain how the moral right to life justifies mass murder.
quote:
The whole problem erupts when people do not understand that their morals are not "natural" but rather agreed upon. |
No, the problem stems from people who reject natural rights and assume the authority to define morality based on their subjective desires. Your argument would mean the majority, not just in a country, but in the world, defines morality. When did the world take a poll? Wouldn't this mean homosexuals and witches could morally be put to death if the majority of the world said they were immoral? Almost a majority of people live in East Asia, if they believe certain behaviors are immoral and worthy of death and you and I disagree, are they right?
quote:
Just because Germans agreed to murder jews, doesn't make it natural. |
Prove it.
quote:
It is because they thought their moral was superior that the crime was hideous to such an extent. |
Huh?
quote:
And just because you think it's wrong to murder jews, doesn't make it natural too. |
No, but the fact I didn't create the Jews means I lack the moral authority to take what belongs to them. A natural right is a moral or just claim to act, do Jews have a moral or just claim to exist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Ramo - quote:
Assuming there is a "God," he would be the last thing I would give moral authority. My morality is not tied to whomever or whatever has power over me (hence my politics). |
Why assume there is a "God", I don't. What is your morality tied to?
Because I don't own you.
quote:
If you created life, why should you have moral authority over me? |
Because you would not exist without my effort.
Because I don't own you.
quote:
Without my parents, I wouldn't exist. |
And without the creation of life, they wouldn't exist. And you wouldn't exist if the "creator" had not instilled in your parents (and theirs) the desire to procreate.
quote:
That seems more relevant to me than some "God" (if He exists) that created the first proteins and RNA; if He didn't do it, nature would have anyways. |
You are the one who insists on introducing "God", not me.
quote:
No. I could be some computer program. Who could tell? |
Then this debate is meaningless, I thought I was dealing with someone who was serious. Do you have evidence for this?
quote:
No. You could be God talking to me about politics on a forum about a computer game. It isn't impossible. |
Then wouldn't I have proof to back this up? I don't.
quote:
What's the logic behind this assertion? |
Humans did not create life, they were created by that which created life.
Because you have the moral authority over that which you create because it belongs to you.
quote:
I don't see why, if God exists, He created me, but my parents didn't. What about the first specimen of homo sapiens sapiens? Would he have moral authority over me? What's the real distinction between "creation" and what you call "conception?" |
The difference between conception and creation is that conception is how life perpetuates itself, not how life began.
Btw, the first human is long gone. As for "God", did your parents create the DNA that constitutes your body? Nope.
quote:
If God was created by someone else, would God still have created me? |
Then "God" wouldn't be "God", would he?
quote:
The initial step to anarchism was based on utilitarianism, but I've dropped that moral basis in favor of a more anarchist one. There isn't a purely rational explanation for the change. It just happened. Call it faith. |
But I asked you how you conclude something is immoral, not about your political transformation.
quote:
There's nothing illogical or inconsistent in what I'm saying. I don't presume to have a magical system of rights that transcends the universe. |
There's nothing magical about my system. It's straightforward, you own yourself and we didn't create you. That's why you have a moral or just claim to exist. You guys keep trying to introduce "God" into my arguments. But what are the explanations you guys have offered for your moral systems? You don't know, and Siro says morality is defined by societal consensus (now changed to a worldwide consensus ). That to me is "magical" and easily shown to be contradictory.
quote:
Can't do it. Sorry. |
Can't or won't? I choose not to depend on a moral system devised by someone who can't explain why something is or is not immoral.
quote:
Because it involves coercion of an extraordinary magnitude. |
So what? Why does coercion violate your definition of morality?
Would that be the human mind that dreamed up mass murder as a political tool? Strange you would claim morality stems from the human mind when you can't explain why something is immoral.
quote:
There's no such thing as ownership if there's no government. |
Dogs don't have a "government", why do they defend their turf so strenuously?
quote:
Then he would own me. |
Meaning you wouldn't resent the situation? We all would, natural rights can be detected by identifying universal traits and behavorial characteristics. But you just said ownership can't exist without government, so why would your slavemaster own you?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-04-2002 00:08
....
|