Thread: How to win an argument with a gun

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

Natural rights derive from self-ownership. If you don't own yourself, who does?

You also misunderstand the word "unalienable". It means something that cannot be taken by lien, or by contract.

So the six million Jews who were killed, their rights were not taken away?

If being herded into a gas chamber is not a suspension of basic rights, what is?

So, what is your principle, if you have any? For example, why should people be allowed to practice any religion other than a government religion? Don't give me the Constitution angle, that's a 200 year old dead letter and it doesn't describe morality.

What harm comes from allowing people such freedom? Assuming they keep it out of government, such beliefs are largely benign.

If, as you fundamentally believe, might is right, how can anything government does be wrong?

Rights are decided by the majority.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

So the six million Jews who were killed, their rights were not taken away?

No. They were denied their natural rights. If you are made a slave, does that mean someone actually owns you and controls your thoughts and your body and the identity that you is you no longer exists? Of course not, what they have is the power, granted by government, to use whatever method of coercion is necessary (or desired), including violence, in order to obtain compliance from you. Natural rights stem from self-ownership in that they provide a framework for identifying when one is being prevented from fully exercising one's self-ownership.

What harm comes from allowing people such freedom? Assuming they keep it out of government, such beliefs are largely benign.

I would argue that it's the same for owning a gun. There is no harm in owning one. Assuming they don't use it to threaten or harm an innocent person, ownership and possession is entirely benign.

And, why should they keep it out of government? If the majority wants religion, it's right, and your belief that it is wrong is irrational.

Rights are decided by the majority.

The majority of whom? Who decides what is a majority? The fact is, "the majority" has no power at all. Power is concentrated in the hands of the few, and if they choose to listen to "the majority" they will do so, if they choose otherwise, how will "the majority" stop them? If the majority could direct power, then it would not change my contention that your basic principle is that might is right. I'd also ask you then, how you would declare it wrong to put Jews, or anyone else, into gas chambers if the majority agree that it is a good thing to do it?

If you have no objective determination of right and wrong for human interaction, then you have the same problem as a religious person. Your morality stems from pure emotion and is irrational, or it is guided entirely by demagogues/priests.

My argument is based on what is observed in reality. In reality right and wrong is decided by the majority (this is demonstrable), and right come from that. I do believe that certain rights are objective, however reality and the processes of society point towards subjectivity.

The majority of California voters decided to deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law. Whether or not that is right or wrong has little bearing on the outcome. The only way the "right thing" can occur in the situation is if the majority decide to change the law. There are checks and balances in government to prevent total majority rule, but that has little relevance to my point.

Rights are invented by man. We decide what rights do and do not exist. What we do not need as a deluded idea of "God given" rights or natural rights. None of which exist unless the government at hand recognizes them. This is not a theoretical argument, but an argument based on fact.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

My argument is based on what is observed in reality. In reality right and wrong is decided by the majority (this is demonstrable)...

[/quote]

I dispute the claim that is demonstrable. You have yet to define what you mean by a majority, and I would be curious to understand how you believe the majority demonstrates right from wrong.

I do believe that certain rights are objective, however reality and the processes of society point towards subjectivity.

"Processes of society" is rhetoric for what? Please be more specific. Society is not a thing that exists in reality and can be a label for many different groups of people.

The majority of California voters decided to deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law.

Is that what "they" all decided exactly, in unison, or did each individual have his or her own reasons for it? I'm surprised that you believe that you can think for that many people, including what their exact decisions and motives were for checking a box on a ballot.

Whether or not that is right or wrong has little bearing on the outcome.

Well, by your assertions, it's right that gays be excluded from equal treatment under the law because a) you believe that the majority decides what is right and wrong and b) you believe that the majority believes that gays should be denied that equal treatment. It's irrational to hold that the majority decided wrongly since the majority makes right. Or so you say. Are you an irrational person?

The only way the "right thing" can occur in the situation is if the majority decide to change the law. There are checks and balances in government to prevent total majority rule, but that has little relevance to my point.

Well, I'm not one to consider the system of government to be the arbiter of right and wrong or of morality and more than I consider a system of religion to be the same. What you seem to have done is invested all the trappings of religion into the state. Instead of a book, like the Bible, making right and wrong, there are legislators who perform that function.

Rights are invented by man. We decide what rights do and do not exist. What we do not need as a deluded idea of "God given" rights or natural rights. None of which exist unless the government at hand recognizes them. This is not a theoretical argument, but an argument based on fact.

That does not mean that natural rights aren't objectively derived. If you want people to have equal treatment, then a framework for ethics is necessary. Otherwise, your desire for equal treatment is based on pure emotion and is no more valid than the closeted Christian's desire to avoid hell by avoiding his homosexual urges.

Why do you consider natural rights to be deluded? Is it because it is a system created by man? The scientific method is also a system created by man. Science can be done with out. Discoveries about natural phenomenon can be made and theories developed, but the system provides a clear path for empirical observation. Would you call the scientific method deluded?

If you hold that rights can only come from government, then the source of rights is might makes right. I asked you how you would argue that it was wrong for Germans to shovel Jews into ovens. Can you answer it?

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

I dispute the claim that is demonstrable. You have yet to define what you mean by a majority, and I would be curious to understand how you believe the majority demonstrates right from wrong.

By majority I mean a majority of those who are involved in making decisions. Government.

[quote]"Processes of society" is rhetoric for what? Please be more specific. Society is not a thing that exists in reality and can be a label for many different groups of people.

Is that what "they" all decided exactly, in unison, or did each individual have his or her own reasons for it? I'm surprised that you believe that you can think for that many people, including what their exact decisions and motives were for checking a box on a ballot.

Well, by your assertions, it's right that gays be excluded from equal treatment under the law because a) you believe that the majority decides what is right and wrong and b) you believe that the majority believes that gays should be denied that equal treatment. It's irrational to hold that the majority decided wrongly since the majority makes right. Or so you say. Are you an irrational person?

No, thats a bit of a strawman. My argument is that the majority defines rights. "God given rights" do not exist. Proposition 8 is an excellent example of the majority deciding to deny the minority basic civil rights.

Well, I'm not one to consider the system of government to be the arbiter of right and wrong or of morality and more than I consider a system of religion to be the same. What you seem to have done is invested all the trappings of religion into the state. Instead of a book, like the Bible, making right and wrong, there are legislators who perform that function.

That does not mean that natural rights aren't objectively derived. If you want people to have equal treatment, then a framework for ethics is necessary. Otherwise, your desire for equal treatment is based on pure emotion and is no more valid than the closeted Christian's desire to avoid hell by avoiding his homosexual urges.

Why do you consider natural rights to be deluded? Is it because it is a system created by man? The scientific method is also a system created by man. Science can be done with out. Discoveries about natural phenomenon can be made and theories developed, but the system provides a clear path for empirical observation. Would you call the scientific method deluded?

The scientific method is demonstrable, just as how the absence of "natural rights" is also demonstrable.

If you hold that rights can only come from government, then the source of rights is might makes right. I asked you how you would argue that it was wrong for Germans to shovel Jews into ovens. Can you answer it?

It is wrong from our perspective and our version of human rights. The Nazi's did not share that view, and acted on it. The holocaust did not stop because it was wrong, but because Germany lost the war. Slavery was not abolished in the South because it was wrong, slavery was abolished because they lost the war. Had Germany succeeded and defeated the Allies, then they would have maintained the status quot. What the defeated Allies thought was right or wrong would be irrelevant. Had the South succeed slavery would have continued.

It is nice to think that people have "natural rights", however in practice, they do not exist outside the confines and decisions of government.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

If gun ownership were God given right, then why is the US the only country in the world that recognizes that right?

This is because, even with all our flaws, with all our alienation of inalienable rights, The US is still the BEST country to live in. When that changes, then I'll either a) fight to change that or b) move to the country which IS the best to live in.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

....might is right....

This is the oldest rule in the book. The guy with the biggest stick makes the rules.

And a bunch of (what Wolverine and many others think) old backwards nonapplicaply thinking guys (ie the founding fathers) saw this, and thought that we should be able to make a nation where we don't have to be ruled by the tyranny of a guy (ie king) or bunch of other guys (government, criminals, etc...) and made it so We The People could have "might" as well.

Sadly, our government has eroded this right.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

My argument is based on what is observed in reality. In reality right and wrong is decided by the majority (this is demonstrable), and right come from that. I do believe that certain rights are objective, however reality and the processes of society point towards subjectivity.

.......


Rights are invented by man. We decide what rights do and do not exist. What we do not need as a deluded idea of "God given" rights or natural rights. None of which exist unless the government at hand recognizes them. This is not a theoretical argument, but an argument based on fact.

This is, very sadly, true. And simply because "the government at hand" doesn't recognize them, does not make them alienable.

The fact that someone is taking your rights away, doesn't mean you shouldn't have those rights.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

It is nice to think that people have "natural rights", however in practice, they do not exist outside the confines and decisions of government.

It is touching, and reveals that you have thought about it, that you think it is "nice" that people have "natural rights". I am just thankful that someone, somewhere decided that it wasn't just "nice" and it was worth dying for. Those "someones" where those who made our constitution and fought for our country.

Originally Posted by ravill

This is because, even with all our flaws, with all our alienation of inalienable rights, The US is still the BEST country to live in. When that changes, then I'll either a) fight to change that or b) move to the country which IS the best to live in.

America says America is the best country to live in. I am not really interested in what is the best country to live in, it is relative when considering first world nations. Europe would be awesome.

This is the oldest rule in the book. The guy with the biggest stick makes the rules.

And a bunch of (what Wolverine and many others think) old backwards nonapplicaply thinking guys (ie the founding fathers) saw this, and thought that we should be able to make a nation where we don't have to be ruled by the tyranny of a guy (ie king) or bunch of other guys (government, criminals, etc...) and made it so We The People could have "might" as well.

Sadly, our government has eroded this right.

Which is the product of the government deciding what rights are right and what rights are "unnecessary".

This is, very sadly, true. And simply because "the government at hand" doesn't recognize them, does not make them alienable.

The fact that someone is taking your rights away, doesn't mean you shouldn't have those rights.

I don't make the argument that we should or shouldn't have certain rights. My argument is that unless the government recognizes them, they do not exist.

I should be able to buy an M-16 for a little less than $20,000. But I can't. So what use is should?

It is touching, and reveals that you have thought about it, that you think it is "nice" that people have "natural rights". I am just thankful that someone, somewhere decided that it wasn't just "nice" and it was worth dying for. Those "someones" where those who made our constitution and fought for our country.

None of this contradicts my position, but serves to only add to it.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

America says America is the best country to live in. I am not really interested in what is the best country to live in, it is relative when considering first world nations. Europe would be awesome.


Which is the product of the government deciding what rights are right and what rights are "unnecessary".



I don't make the argument that we should or shouldn't have certain rights. My argument is that unless the government recognizes them, they do not exist.

I should be able to buy an M-16 for a little less than $20,000. But I can't. So what use is should?


None of this contradicts my position, but serves to only add to it.

Actually, what I should have wrote was that "I, ravill, think The US is the best country to live in!"

I think we are agreeing here really.

It seems to me that you are coming from an apathetic point of view of "you are screwed 'cause your government took, is taking, is gonna take your so called silly rights so deal with it!" It seems pragmatic actually.

And I am coming from "yup they are, and it ain't cool" point of view.

We just disagree on the origin of rights.