Inviolability

[Korintar]

I notice many discussions about abortion, war, vegetarianism, etc, and in my opinion several of the arguments made concerning these matters are made on the premise that individuals have an inalienable right to life. Who here believes this? From where does that right derive, if you believe it? (belief in a higher power is an acceptable answer in my view) Furthermore, how do you define that right? How far does it extend? Under what circumstances is life justly ended? Ex) (does not reflect my own views) "I believe that all sentient life is sacred and that life begins at conception and can only justly end at natural death." Why do you think this way? Do you feel that you are able to live in a consistent manner with your views concerning this principle? If so, how do you do it?

[Diseased Imaginings]

I do. I think it's wrong to kill another man, so long as that man (or woman for that matter) does nothing to harm/violate my person (that last technicality brings my previous condemnation of abortion into question).


in regards to justly ending life, I think people themselves have every right to decide that. To keep a person alive against their will (i.e. a ban on medically assisted suicide) is wrong as that persons will and judgment is being deemed subordinate to the decision of another.

if a person is braindead with no hope of recovering, I don't think they really count as a human anymore, and therefore can be justly disposed of if or no other reason than to conserve the resources expended to keep that nonhuman alive.


from where do I derive these convictions? Ethical judgments based upon sympathy. I know that I would rather remain alive, and I know that most other people would rather remain alive, so I think it wrong to kill them without cause.

[RightLeaningChristians]

Who here believes this?

I do not.

From where does that right derive, if you believe it? (belief in a higher power is an acceptable answer in my view)

My view comes from my Religion. Only those of my Religion should be allowed to live. There is always an option for conversion.

Furthermore, how do you define that right?

"Only those currently involved in my Religion, or Inquiring into my Faith"

How far does it extend?

As far as the Legal System allows.

Under what circumstances is life justly ended?

When Conversion is refused or when someone of another Religion forces their views upon me.

Why do you think this way?

Religion

Do you feel that you are able to live in a consistent manner with your views concerning this principle?

Yes. It helps me sleep better at night.

If so, how do you do it?

What?

[Arumdaum]

Who here believes this?

I do not.

From where does that right derive, if you believe it? (belief in a higher power is an acceptable answer in my view)

My view comes from my Religion. Only those of my Religion should be allowed to live. There is always an option for conversion.

Furthermore, how do you define that right?

"Only those currently involved in my Religion, or Inquiring into my Faith"

How far does it extend?

As far as the Legal System allows.

Under what circumstances is life justly ended?

When Conversion is refused or when someone of another Religion forces their views upon me.

Why do you think this way?

Religion

Do you feel that you are able to live in a consistent manner with your views concerning this principle?

Yes. It helps me sleep better at night.

If so, how do you do it?

What?

Holy sh*t this guy wants to kill me.

[Diseased Imaginings]

Holy sh*t this guy wants to kill me.

me too

[Callisdrun]

I believe that my rights end where another person's starts.

Hence, I don't believe that anyone has the right to use another's organs without their consent, so even if I considered a fetus or embryo a person, which I do not, as I mark my birthday as the beginning of my life, not my... conception, I wouldn't believe that said being had a right to a woman's organs if she didn't want them used by it.

I oppose the death penalty because I believe killing someone is wrong, and only acceptable to end an immediate threat to the lives of others. Additionally, the state is a representative, an agent, of the public. So when it executes someone wrongly (and don't even try to deny that this happens), it makes murderers of us all.

[Macindia]

Who here believes this?

I do not.

From where does that right derive, if you believe it? (belief in a higher power is an acceptable answer in my view)

My view comes from my Religion. Only those of my Religion should be allowed to live. There is always an option for conversion.

Furthermore, how do you define that right?

"Only those currently involved in my Religion, or Inquiring into my Faith"

How far does it extend?

As far as the Legal System allows.

Under what circumstances is life justly ended?

When Conversion is refused or when someone of another Religion forces their views upon me.

Why do you think this way?

Religion

Do you feel that you are able to live in a consistent manner with your views concerning this principle?

Yes. It helps me sleep better at night.

If so, how do you do it?

What?

I'm going to be an asshole here, but:

tagoul, callate, urusai, and anyother non-English way to say it.

[RightLeaningChristians]

Who here believes this?

I do not.

From where does that right derive, if you believe it? (belief in a higher power is an acceptable answer in my view)

My view comes from my Religion. Only those of my Religion should be allowed to live. There is always an option for conversion.

Furthermore, how do you define that right?

"Only those currently involved in my Religion, or Inquiring into my Faith"

How far does it extend?

As far as the Legal System allows.

Under what circumstances is life justly ended?

When Conversion is refused or when someone of another Religion forces their views upon me.

Why do you think this way?

Religion

Do you feel that you are able to live in a consistent manner with your views concerning this principle?

Yes. It helps me sleep better at night.

If so, how do you do it?

What?

I'm going to be an asshole here, but:

tagoul, callate, urusai, and anyother non-English way to say it.

The hell are you talking about?

[The Adrian Empire]

Holy sh*t this guy wants to kill me.

me too

Will this come as a surprise that it has taken me almost two weeks to figure out he is just a parody....

[Arumdaum]

I believe that my rights end where another person's starts.

Hence, I don't believe that anyone has the right to use another's organs without their consent, so even if I considered a fetus or embryo a person, which I do not, as I mark my birthday as the beginning of my life, not my... conception, I wouldn't believe that said being had a right to a woman's organs if she didn't want them used by it.

I oppose the death penalty because I believe killing someone is wrong, and only acceptable to end an immediate threat to the lives of others. Additionally, the state is a representative, an agent, of the public. So when it executes someone wrongly (and don't even try to deny that this happens), it makes murderers of us all.

i agree with this

[Arumdaum]

Who here believes this?

I do not.

From where does that right derive, if you believe it? (belief in a higher power is an acceptable answer in my view)

My view comes from my Religion. Only those of my Religion should be allowed to live. There is always an option for conversion.

Furthermore, how do you define that right?

"Only those currently involved in my Religion, or Inquiring into my Faith"

How far does it extend?

As far as the Legal System allows.

Under what circumstances is life justly ended?

When Conversion is refused or when someone of another Religion forces their views upon me.

Why do you think this way?

Religion

Do you feel that you are able to live in a consistent manner with your views concerning this principle?

Yes. It helps me sleep better at night.

If so, how do you do it?

What?

I'm going to be an asshole here, but:

tagoul, callate, urusai, and anyother non-English way to say it.

The hell are you talking about?

URUSAI! DAKCHU!

[Tunizcha]

No, because there are no such things as rights to begin with. There are only restrictions.

[Rotting Corpse]

I've been saying rights are constructs awhile now. Other people now say it with more prevalence... thus proving the superiority of my will.

[Barringtonia]

Under what circumstances is life justly ended?

When Conversion is refused or when someone of another Religion forces their views upon me.

Wheeeee, just too funny.

[Barzan]

No, because there are no such things as rights to begin with. There are only restrictions.

There are no rights, but there are privileges. Privileges are granted to those who act in a civilised manner. Without a state to create and protect them, things like the right to speech, the right to travel, the right to vote, etc. are meaningless abstract concepts. In a state of anarchy, or in a state without a liberal democracy, said rights are gone.

[Rotting Corpse]

In a state of anarchy, or in a state without a liberal democracy, said rights are gone.

Don't listen to him. There were rights in constitutional monarchies and anarchist Spain.

[RightLeaningChristians]

Under what circumstances is life justly ended?

When Conversion is refused or when someone of another Religion forces their views upon me.

Wheeeee, just too funny.

Indeed. I just can't stop laughing.




Meh. Last post on NSG.

[Barzan]

In a state of anarchy, or in a state without a liberal democracy, said rights are gone.

Don't listen to him. There were rights in constitutional monarchies and anarchist Spain.

Well constitutional monarchies can be liberal democracies. Look at Britain. As for anarchist Spain, to me, anarchy is the absence of order or government. Republican-era Spain had both, regardless of its provisional nature or its name. There was a social contract of which to speak.

Mind you, we're all discussing philosophy here, so there's no need to attack those who are being civil. Please don't tell others not to listen to me. Your point would have been made without that line.

[Rotting Corpse]

Well constitutional monarchies can be liberal democracies. Look at Britain. As for anarchist Spain, to me, anarchy is the absence of order or government. Republican-era Spain had both, regardless of its provisional nature or its name. There was a social contract of which to speak.

Your statist liberalism does not impress me. There have been constitutional monarchies which were not liberal democracies, and there were parts of Spain during the civil war without formal government that continued to practice rights.

[Callisdrun]

Well constitutional monarchies can be liberal democracies. Look at Britain. As for anarchist Spain, to me, anarchy is the absence of order or government. Republican-era Spain had both, regardless of its provisional nature or its name. There was a social contract of which to speak.

Your statist liberalism does not impress me. There have been constitutional monarchies which were not liberal democracies, and there were parts of Spain during the civil war without formal government that continued to practice rights.

BAWWWWW STATISM!

With no imposition of order, what is to stop someone from killing another just because they feel like it? Not much, really.

[Barzan]

Well constitutional monarchies can be liberal democracies. Look at Britain. As for anarchist Spain, to me, anarchy is the absence of order or government. Republican-era Spain had both, regardless of its provisional nature or its name. There was a social contract of which to speak.

Your statist liberalism does not impress me. There have been constitutional monarchies which were not liberal democracies, and there were parts of Spain during the civil war without formal government that continued to practice rights.

Ok, I worded my statement poorly. I meant all the rights we have today would be gone. Said monarchies and Spain did not afford the same rights and liberties -- and especially the protection -- that modern societies under liberal democracies do. I don't claim that liberal democracies are a necessary prerequisite to any rights.

My views on rights are similar to those of Hobbes. The state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

[Rotting Corpse]

With no imposition of order, what is to stop someone from killing another just because they feel like it? Not much, really.

Imposition of order occurred long before the state came into existence.

Ok, I worded my statement poorly. I meant all the rights we have today would be gone. Said monarchies and Spain did not afford the same rights and liberties -- and especially the protection -- that modern societies under liberal democracies do. I don't claim that liberal democracies are a necessary prerequisite to any rights.

Liberal democracies do not last.

[NERVUN]

Macindia, Arumdaum, telling someone to shut up isn't the best of debate tactics, and using a different language doesn't either protect you or impress anyone.

[Callisdrun]

With no imposition of order, what is to stop someone from killing another just because they feel like it? Not much, really.

Imposition of order occurred long before the state came into existence.

Doesn't answer the question, does it?

"What's kind of pasta do you like best?"

"Tomatoes predate noodles!"

[Barzan]

Liberal democracies do not last.

That's a fair statement. However, I will point out that they have lasted longer than any other type of system in the modern world so far.