A single salient question; is there a human right to self defense?

Human rights is just a belief system. You cannot logically defend beliefs or they wouldn't be beliefs. They would be facts.

 

I like to get out of the rarified air once in a while

But seriously, have to get going to work - I think the topic is exhausted when we're taking the piss out of each other

 

Then why are you against women carrying a gun to protect themselves?

 

It is a fact that our nation's founders considered the RKBA to be an essential right of a free people. It is a further fact that this "belief" was not abandoned by those who followed them.

 

I believe you exist.

 

I see a vast gulf of difference between a belief and ( Science, Maths ) proven facts, Theology, Philosophy, Mythology are Subjective beliefs, however, when a believer takes up the sword to do the will of a Deity or gods, things progress beyond the scope of a belief system, hence why the founding Fathers espoused "The Right to keep and bear Arms" You can believe in the Tooth Fairy, however a belief is mostly harmless until some harmful action is taken in the name of a belief.

 

Sure, there's a difference, but using the word "belief" to refer to one, and some other word to refer to the other is not the correct way to express that difference in English. We've been using the word, "belief" to refer to something we hold to be true for hundreds of years. Beliefs can be held with varying degrees of certainty. Here are two statements, one of which is more certain than the other: I believe that my car is in the driveway. I believe all tautologies. Judging from the way they go on in this thread, I'd have to say that many posters here believe the first to be more certain than the second, since there can be empirical evidence for the first and not for the second. It's actually the other way around though. Tautologies are true by definition, but I can't be sure my car's in the driveway 'till I look. You, for example, list philosophy among theology and mythology. That betrays a complete lack of understanding of what philosophy is. Philosophy is where we find deductive reasoning guided by logical laws. This is a priori knowledge, and, where the deductions are made from definitional propositions, it holds the exact same degree of certainty as mathematics. Science, being inductive, is less certain, but I'm getting off track. So, anyway, we need the word belief intact. Without it, precise communication is much more difficult. Imagine trying to write or understand this article assuming the childish definition of "belief" held by many posters in this thread.

If you want to indicate lack of certainty, just come out and say it,.. or, if you want a single word to denote lack of absolute certainty, "trust" is much less ambiguous to that end than "believe". I trust that my car's in the driveway, but I'd have check to be certain.

 

I can see how a psychopath might suppose that. For the rest of us, though, capable of empathy, human rights are just as real as any other part of the external world. I, for one, am just as certain that it's wrong to rape a five year old as I am that 1+1=2. The thing is; if there are things that are wrong to do to people, then people have rights. This is all absolutely true whether you understand it or not.

 

Wow, I kind of thought it was wrong to rape someone no matter how old they are!!! I guess it is your human right to believe what you want in this regard...

Anyways, an emotional argument isn't the same as a logical arguement. Emotional arguments are mostly subjective and based on personal beliefs. The emotional argument is mostly about consistency in your beliefs and convictions and not about proving them true or not.

The fact that I view these core beliefs as improvable doesn't mean I regard them as invalid. Their value is to be accepted on faith.

 

Yes, I believe man, and even woman, are above all other creatures that walk and fly---who have the natural right to self protection.

People who do not support this right are likely brainwashed Leftist snowflakes.

 

Again your question assumes its own answer. I'm not against anyone carrying a firearm in order to protect themselves. I'm commenting on the necessity to do so being a poor way to live.

 

And as has been said, whether or not it is a poor way to live does not change the facts that such is the state of the real world. Society does not protect the individuals from harm, that is a duty that befalls to the individuals, and they are responsible for their own well being.

 

But there's no argument here. Arguments have steps. What we're talking about here are irreducible pieces of knowledge, axioms. It takes no more faith to believe that it's wrong to rape people than it does to believe that 1=1.

 

Oh I agree about reality. I've said it here before that if I lived in the US I would definitely get a CCP and carry.

 

I have a beautiful wife and 3 healthy sons. I don't give my gun a second thought. I have never "needed" my gun, but it doesn't harm anyone and nobody has ever seen it in public. I have never needed a cop to save me either. Is it a poor way to live on the necessity of having cops?

 

You are somewhat confused as to what constitutes "Data" you correctly stated; 1 + 1 = 2, Philosophy is not Science, it is predicated on Rationalization, and vague reason that is subjective and open to interpretation.
Science is based on Maths and laboratory experiments that can be duplicated and proven in any standard laboratory using standardized procedure, Philosophers are not Scientists by any means, and Faith does not = Maths,
You stated that Rape of a child (5 year old) is wrong, and it is, hence the lawful age of consent, a minor vs an Adult.
In life, you have objective vs subjective reason, and subjective Data is open to debate, however, objective Data is fixed or a constant, 1+1=2 and Debate will not alter a fact.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a fact of Life and not altered as a Belief would be as their is ample proof that Guns exist as does Personal Defense protecting those people of weaker proportions.

 

I agree, but I don't like the 1+1=2 analogy. 1+1=10 in binary.

 

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html

An axiom is that Wrong=Wrong and 1=1.

"True axioms are more solid than that. They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge. There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness."

Rape is not always wrong. Many animals rape as a natural part of their biology. Rape is only wrong from the subjective perspective many humans but not necessarily all. A 14 year old girl being given in a forced marriage and made to consummate it is little different than rape and yet it is not only acceptable behavior but immoral for her to reject the process.

 

Binary is a language designed for TTL, and consists of square wave pulses, 5 volts, and either a high or low, 0 volts, so it is a 1, or 0 and these are Bits that compose Bytes of Data, so with the use of additional compatible Binary languages and translation, Maths are possible, and hence, 1+1=2, regardless of language protocol.

 

Faulty reasoning, Rape is a Moral concept that pertains only to Humans, not Animals, Animals are by nature, Amoral, Rape is defined as an act of Violence against another Person, an act of Violation of an Offensive Sexual nature, the lack of consent being a key element, including those victims not capable of consent due to Age or Mental Defect or Decreased Mental capacity, unconscious or comatose, intoxicated etc...
Rape is always wrong, it is a Crime punishable by Law.

 

Name which animals commit sexual assault as a natural part of their biology.

Simply because an act is deemed to be acceptable by some, does not truly make it acceptable. Some believe that a strong, centralized federal government having total say over any and all matters is acceptable, but that does not make it so.

 

Sharks, ducks etc...

Also it gets worse, lookup Traumatic insemination.

I am not arguing that that it is acceptable or isn't acceptable. I am argueing that the concept of itself is a figment of your own imagination.

 

Is that why some species of female kill and eat the male after mating?

By such definition, is not everything in the world simply a concept that is a figment of the imagination of someone?

 

I don't know if there is a human right for self defence, but there is clearly a human need for it.

 

Every human society has had guardians or peacekeepers or order maintainers in some form. Therefore it must be usual. But the necessity of having a firearm to protect oneself in an advanced industrialised society with excellent social infrastructure speaks for itself. I don't discount the necessity, I'm merely bemoaning it.