an eye for an eye?

[ford prefect]

Go stand in front of a pack of starving wolves and tell them they can't rip you to shreds because you have rights and see what fucking happens.

Rights are a concept. You don't have any "rights". Just because someone says you do, doesn't make it so. Paper doesn't refuse ink.

Wolves aren't capable of reason, people can. I don't think it is too much to accept that in any reasonable society a human being is should have certain inalienable rights natural and legal rights. Following your logic slavery should be acceptable, the police should be able to use torture as an interviewing method, men should be able to beat their wives and we would have simply stood back and watched the holocaust take place. I'm sorry, but that is a poor arguement.

I'm afraid that 2,300 years of civilization also disagrees with that idea. The tennent of basic human rights has been around since the Stoics in 301 bc when they held that no one was a slave by their nature and that every human being is entitled to the basic virtues of life that allow mankind to flourish and that no man had the right to take the life of another.

Just because we don't always follow a natural and just philosophy, doesn't make that idea any less valid or any less worth while. That is exactly why we do have International human rights law based on the prinicple of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[MYstIC G]

Sorry, but no. I never said any of those things. So to start off, you're being a spacker.

Getting back to the topic, what I'm trying to point out to you is that rights are words on pieces of paper. I used wolves as an example. If you prefer a human example. Show me how "rights" stopped Raul Moat? Every one of his victims had "rights" by your argument. Nobody has the right to take a life by your argument. Oh look, those ideas didn't do anything.....

Rights are a concept, a nice concept no doubt, but at the end of the day if someone wants to fuck with you and does, you either do something to stop it or you get fucked.

It's no different than political correctness balanced with freedom of speech, you can't have both effectively and I know I'd prefer freedom of speech than having to call someone a "rest room facilities manager" because they don't like the phrase "toilet cleaner".

 

[old.Tohtori]

watched the holocaust take place.

Just as an off-topic thing;

Me and a bud were talking about how the whole ww2 was against this and that, part being the whole "vs master race concept".

That's all fine and well we thought, then started thinking what the TV, magazines and peoples view on others states(by the average household joe and jane);

You have to be this thin, look like this, shave your head like that, have this many children, drive this, own that, act like that, think like that(don't have opinions!) and so on and so on.

Kinda makes you want to tell people who say "You need to be like this." to STFU and that the WW2 was won to stop people like that.

 

[ford prefect]

Sorry, but no. I never said any of those things. So to start off, you're being a spacker.

Getting back to the topic, what I'm trying to point out to you is that rights are words on pieces of paper. I used wolves as an example. If you prefer a human example. Show me how "rights" stopped Raul Moat? Every one of his victims had "rights" by your argument. Nobody has the right to take a life by your argument. Oh look, those ideas didn't do anything.....

They did have basic human rights and he had no right to take their lives. As I said in my previous post, it is a philosophy, which by definition is an idea. The law is also an idea. Is it right to use the idea of the law to protect the idea of basic human rights? Of course it is. As I also said earlier, just because people don't always respect the idea of those rights doesn't make them less valid. One of the main reasons we have fought two world wars was to elevate those rights with the words "Never Again".

So back on topic, is it right to use the law to essentially torture someone, even if the concept of an eye for an eye is used? Or is that a moral abuse? In the western world we have been raised on christian dogma and ideas, such as an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, however islamic law is just that: law. It may be based on a religion, but it is as valid in an islamic country as the Police and Criminal Evidence act is here.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So back on topic, is it right to use the law to essentially torture someone, even if the concept of an eye for an eye is used? Or is that a moral abuse? In the western world we have been raised on christian dogma and ideas, such as an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, however islamic law is just that: law. It may be based on a religion, but it is as valid in an islamic country as the Police and Criminal Evidence act is here.

Dont' know about "using the law", but i do think humanity is getting way too soft and overprotective and like i've doomisized before, it will be humanities downfall because we are too hellbent on saving everyone.

I'm not saying we should go too much into the other direction, with superior humans having rights etc, but we can't keep on pussyfooting like this.

More of a mass over singular(sincular?) should be applied.

In other words, is saving this kitten going to burn my house down.

(Btw; eye for an eye would make the world half-blind )

 

[nath]

Sorry, but no. I never said any of those things. So to start off, you're being a spacker.

Getting back to the topic, what I'm trying to point out to you is that rights are words on pieces of paper. I used wolves as an example. If you prefer a human example. Show me how "rights" stopped Raul Moat? Every one of his victims had "rights" by your argument. Nobody has the right to take a life by your argument. Oh look, those ideas didn't do anything.....

Rights are a concept, a nice concept no doubt, but at the end of the day if someone wants to fuck with you and does, you either do something to stop it or you get fucked.

It's no different than political correctness balanced with freedom of speech, you can't have both effectively and I know I'd prefer freedom of speech than having to call someone a "rest room facilities manager" because they don't like the phrase "toilet cleaner".

I think you're confusing "rights" with "magical super field that prevents harm". No problem, easily done.

 

[MYstIC G]

I think you're confusing "rights" with "magical super field that prevents harm". No problem, easily done.

Damnit, I'm always doing that