The right to die?

[Sea of red]

You skipped about a hundred steps there. You don't have the right to breathe air. The world is not descending into mob rule just because no one bothered to codify breathing air as a right.

You don't believe in any rights then.

[Carrikature]

I am indeed primarily using it in the liberty sense. Laws can only recognize rights (or infringe them). They do not create them.

Depends on axioms. I don't think natural rights are a thing. I don't usually see supporters using the concept consistently, either.

IF the law tomorrow gave me the legal right to die, it didn't create that right. And Teal would say that just because the law says so doesn't either since she denies a right to an abortion (as do I).

When using 'right' as 'legally protected', all of this is just plain wrong.

[Carrikature]

As a Christian, I believe that. As a non-supernaturalist, I might not; only the fittest have the right, by virtue of being the fittest. If you're arguing from natural philosophy, what is the case for a right to life?

I wouldn't even say the fittest have that right. There's no case for a right to life, simply a recognition that all things naturally seek to live and will fight to do so. There's no basis for natural rights, but it's not as if there's a need for one.

[Teallaura]

I think you're using 'right' in the legally protected sense (as I would do) and not in the basic liberty sense. SoR and DX seem to be using the latter.

Yep, the other is useless - 'basic liberty' would seem to be defined as 'whatever I think I ought to be able to do if I want to' - which is anarchy, not liberty.

[Teallaura]

You don't believe in any rights then.

No, I don't 'believe' in rights - what moron would? I accept that certain rights exist. In my view, they exist because God, Who ultimately has Sole proprietary right to the universe (creating it grants Him same) grants them. Therefore, no, not everything is a right.

Carry correctly points out that I'm taking a legalist view here. I do not accept that 'fundamental' - what the Founders would have called 'self evident' rights have their foundation in law but in God's grace. I do accept that society can and does create legal rights in its precepts of law - the Constitution being an obvious example. Your mushy logic view that freedom/liberty have no limits and that pretty much everything that you don't deem harmful is a right I do not accept. I see no logical nor legal grounds for it. It looks - based on the very little you've wrote - to be a mishmash of natural law, humanism and some relativism thrown in for the fireworks, I suppose.

And no, it's not a right simply because you say it is.

[Carrikature]

And no, it's not a right simply because you say it is.

Or think it should be.


The popular (mis)usage of 'rights' drives me crazy.

[Teallaura]

Try reading my information pane next time before you ramble on about your flavor of theology.

I wouldn't been given a BS in physics and an MS in astronomy had I flunked biology class, Teal. While we're on the topic though, what science degrees do you have?

You believe that an organism can will itself to live, then? You are arguing that an organism can be forced into remaining alive - that's absurd on its face. Medical science does not have the power to do more than support an organisms own processes to prevent death for a time. It's impossible to force something to live - unless you are God.

I majored in Physics and minored in Mathematics but my actual degrees are in Political Science (Masters and work toward Phd). But I passed biology - and most of my career was in Public Health, thanks for asking.

I also did extensive coursework in Constitutional law, American politics, statistical analysis, survey research and I have read Plato, Locke, More, Moore, ( Leviathan - I just finished reading something about him today and can't come up with his name!), Machiavelli (you'd like him - and no, I don't mean 'cause you would like The Prince - I kinda doubt you would, actually), Morganthau (incredible man - writes like dry toast, though) and a few dozen others.

[Teallaura]

While that might be an interesting argument more time than I have right now. I believe it is self-evidence through self-ownership. (as a supernaturalist I have other grounds obviously)

It isn't. You argued that your proprietary rights are tied to the ability to destroy that life. If that's so, you don't have ownership in the first place - both because you can't create your life (a necessary tenet of that position) and because you're only a tenant, God is properly the owner.

[Teallaura]

I'm not a minarchist.

And no rights are not codified by governments. And anarchists are not opposed to governments. They are opposed to the state. There is a difference. Libertarian anarchists tend to be firm deontologists and hold to natural rights.

Breathing is a necessity to life. You have a right to life. Breathing is part and parcel of that. Thus it is a right.

No, it's not a right just because it's necessary for another right. If someone prevented your access to air, they would quite properly be charged with murder but not with violating your right to breathe air because it doesn't exist. It's an absurdity - that's why I used it. There's no need of a right to breathe air. The right to life is sufficient.

[Teallaura]

Actually breathing air is a right since you need air to live and if someone deprives you of that, they are guilty of trying to kill you.

I think you are the one skipping pretty merrily.

Nope, it isn't a right - although another right (life) is related, that doesn't make breathing air a right.

I am indeed primarily using it in the liberty sense. Laws can only recognize rights (or infringe them). They do not create them.

IF the law tomorrow gave me the legal right to die, it didn't create that right. And Teal would say that just because the law says so doesn't either since she denies a right to an abortion (as do I).

No, no, no, and NO. I deny the right to commit murder because the Constitution guarantees the right to life, and a few really bad legal decisions do not change that. On a strictly legal setting, I affirm that the child is a human and therefore entitled to the protections of citizenship and that the test of personhood is illegitimate on its face. The Court ERRED - BIG TIME. That is my legal argument, in part, regarding abortion.

The law can and does create and destroy rights. The self-evident, fundamental, unalienable ones do not come from law, we agree there (and yes, I can and do argue from that POV) but the law does create lesser, legal rights all the time.

[Teallaura]

If self-ownership is a right, and I believe it is incoherent to say that it is not through argumentation ethics, you are making a self-ownership claim in even arguing the point, then there is nothing more fundamental than that.

There's no inherent self ownership claim in the destruction of property - that you can destroy it doesn't make it yours. This is silly.

You do need the right to end it if it is entirely yours. Ownership has as its definition the right to dispose of property, and what we have is a property right in our bodies.

Er, no it doesn't. There are a number of exceptions - you don't have the right to burn your house to the ground or to dump toxic goo onto your property. You don't have the right to destroy an animal inhumanely. So no, destruction is not a defining characteristic of ownership - it would be an absurd one as non-owners can just as easily destroy.

Non-Sequitur. You have a right to freedom of movement. But that doesn't mean you have to be able to fly. Biological realities are foundational presupposition.

Nope, it's a necessary part of your argument - if ownership must necessarily have the right to destroy life then it must necessarily have the right to create your own life - which is absurd since you can't. Destruction is not a necessary part of ownership, anyway. You're confusing destruction with disposal, by the way.

And demonstrated above how fallacious that is.

Nope, not even close.

So hungry to control other people.

So blood thirsty to see others die. Hey, if you can irrationally draw conclusions, so can I!

[Teallaura]

Try reading my information pane next time before you ramble on about your flavor of theology.

I wouldn't been given a BS in physics and an MS in astronomy had I flunked biology class, Teal. While we're on the topic though, what science degrees do you have?

Attherisk
\

At the risk of being accused of double posting, I wanna explain something here. I also like you - you're a nice guy and can be really interesting. But it's posts like this one that keep me from taking you seriously as a debater. You complain that I didn't read you right - while proving that you didn't really read what I wrote. Granted, I come from a legal background but it's that kind of deliberate, rational argumentation that let's us (general) make progress. You don't do that at all despite your science background when you argue.

Naturalism doesn't have a god-like force - the reference isn't theological - it's logical. You need such a force to produce the ends you were describing n your argument but the second you see God in print you assume theology - that's sloppy and I know full well you can do better.

I asked rhetorically if you flunked bio for much the same reason - your sloppy use of terminology. You can't force something to live - you know that. It's sloppy terminology and sloppier logic.

Science could learn a LOT from law. Law has been evaluating evidence since science was in diapers. It's the sloppy 'no, it's not evidence/yes, it is' thing I see in the global climate debate. That does not incline me to listen to an argument I already have trouble following - when I want information, I don't go to people I can't trust to do a good job giving me that information. If they can't use consistent evidentiary procedure, it's a pretty good indication I need to look elsewhere.

Science is your thing but you made a silly assertion - and you clearly don't get the philosophical flavors, let alone the legal ones. When Dee Dee gets around to arguing instead of dancing*, she won't make the mistakes you do - because she does have that grounding (and she even uses it when she wants to ). She'll make me work - you haven't yet shown the willingness to put in the effort that takes.

And weren't you not talking to me again?












































*And yes, it takes two to tango - I'm not doing more than sparring with her. She clearly wasn't here to debate or she'd have formulated a real argument and not a soundbite to start with. I have read a few million of her debates...

[Spartacus]

I also did extensive coursework in Constitutional law, American politics, statistical analysis, survey research and I have read Plato, Locke, More, Moore, ( Leviathan - I just finished reading something about him today and can't come up with his name!), Machiavelli (you'd like him - and no, I don't mean 'cause you would like The Prince - I kinda doubt you would, actually), Morganthau (incredible man - writes like dry toast, though) and a few dozen others.

Thomas Hobbes. Ya coulda just googled it

[Sea of red]

You believe that an organism can will itself to live, then? You are arguing that an organism can be forced into remaining alive - that's absurd on its face. Medical science does not have the power to do more than support an organisms own processes to prevent death for a time. It's impossible to force something to live - unless you are God.

What? We are not talking about willing an organism to live, Teal. What we are talking about is forcing a person on to artificial life-support systems that they don't wish to have, or cases when people with chronic depression simply wish to use a non violent way of ending their own life without endangering others. That IS forcing a person to life whether you see it or not - I don't know how you don't.

This is ABC stuff, Teal. Either you didn't bother to read the arguments myself and others are presenting, or you're intentionally distorting them.

I majored in Physics and minored in Mathematics but my actual degrees are in Political Science (Masters and work toward Phd). But I passed biology - and most of my career was in Public Health, thanks for asking.

Hey, you insulted me. I just answered you back and included a question of my own.

I also did extensive coursework in Constitutional law, American politics, statistical analysis, survey research and I have read Plato, Locke, More, Moore, ( Leviathan - I just finished reading something about him today and can't come up with his name!), Machiavelli (you'd like him - and no, I don't mean 'cause you would like The Prince - I kinda doubt you would, actually), Morganthau (incredible man - writes like dry toast, though) and a few dozen others.

I read some Plato myself. Most of my life has been in the study of the physical sciences though, so I know jack-all about the rest - though I know of Locke. Now, if you ask about Weinberg, Feynman, Dirac, Hawking, Penrose and some others could tell you a thing or two. Science is what interest me, not the law or politics - though now I'm in programming.

[Sea of red]

Attherisk
\At the risk of being accused of double posting, I wanna explain something here. I also like you - you're a nice guy and can be really interesting. But it's posts like this one that keep me from taking you seriously as a debater. You complain that I didn't read you right - while proving that you didn't really read what I wrote. Granted, I come from a legal background but it's that kind of deliberate, rational argumentation that let's us (general) make progress. You don't do that at all despite your science background when you argue.

I know you're not really reading my posts - it comes right through the pixels. Every time you reply back you show me that you're arguing at me instead of with me. You don't take time to think about what I've written, you just look for something you can distort in your favor, and then reload for the next reply. I've seen it thousands of times before and your posts drip with it.

Naturalism doesn't have a god-like force - the reference isn't theological - it's logical. You need such a force to produce the ends you were describing n your argument but the second you see God in print you assume theology - that's sloppy and I know full well you can do better.

I assume theology because when you use God as the foundation to a philosophy you ARE doing theology. Stop BSing me, Teal. I know you're doing theology, and you know you're doing theology, so lets just stop this dance where you pretend you're either ignorant or dishonest. Don't insult my intelligence.

I asked rhetorically if you flunked bio for much the same reason - your sloppy use of terminology. You can't force something to live - you know that. It's sloppy terminology and sloppier logic.

We never talked about "willing" something to live. Never. Not once. The argument has always been about whether or not the government should be able to force people to live in the various scenarios that come up. It's posts like this that go to show you really do have a legal background. You just constantly tap-dance and play with terminology instead of just buckling-up. and facing an argument head-on that you disagree with.

Science could learn a LOT from law. Law has been evaluating evidence since science was in diapers. It's the sloppy 'no, it's not evidence/yes, it is' thing I see in the global climate debate. That does not incline me to listen to an argument I already have trouble following - when I want information, I don't go to people I can't trust to do a good job giving me that information. If they can't use consistent evidentiary procedure, it's a pretty good indication I need to look elsewhere.

From my experience with you discussing climate change I got the impression you base your conclusions on emotions and your philosophical commitments - which explains why it's impossible to argue with you.

This legal tap-dancing might pass for good debate technique in law, political science, or some obscure theology. But it never will in science. Law being older than science gives it nothing over it's methodology - which is far superior. Science learns from it's mistakes far quicker than the law ever does because it's methodology works to sort good ideas from bad ones sooner or later. In law, there are no guarantees bad ideas will bite the dust - like drug laws, gambling laws, etc. I'd get into that but I doubt it would serve much purpose.

Science is your thing but you made a silly assertion - and you clearly don't get the philosophical flavors, let alone the legal ones. When Dee Dee gets around to arguing instead of dancing*, she won't make the mistakes you do - because she does have that grounding (and she even uses it when she wants to ). She'll make me work - you haven't yet shown the willingness to put in the effort that takes.

The feeling is mutual. I've been all around the internet and argued with a large number of people discussing a diverse range of topics. While you're certainly not the worst debater I've ever dealt with, you haven't forced me to go into my philosophy at all. You're simply not very good at representing your own side enough for me to feel you're worth the time to write a detailed reply of my philosophy. I know I'd just waste my time and you'd burn straw for a few pages, and wouldn't bother to take-in what your reading.

I like you too as a person, Teal. You're a good lady. But these arguments you make have more holes in them than Swiss cheese, and they drip with your emotions and personal theology. Picking them apart is a task I'm not feeling up to at this moment in time.

And weren't you not talking to me again?

Yes, I should have known better.

I have a sick cat so I have to go.