If rights are moral claims between people, and not merely the idea of treating people the way you wish to be treated, then it is a little incoherent.
The chicken does not wish to be locked in a small box until it is killed for your pleasure. But you say it has no rights because it is not capable of creating the moral claim between you and it.
But there are people that are incapable of creating a moral claim! Fetuses. People in a coma. People that are already dead.
A person in a permanent coma is much less capable of creating a moral claim than a chicken is.
Someone in a coma doesn't have to create the moral claim, it was created for them by existence. The chicken doesn't create the moral claim between us, nature is the source of rights and nature has designed chickens to be food for other life - just as we're food for the lion. If you get eaten by a lion no one will accuse the lion of the immoral act of murder.
Berserker, you're pulling a bait and switch.
My urge to own a gun for self-defense is nature given, I agree.
However, my urge to deprive you of a gun, for my defense, is also nature given.
You have the right to want a gun. I have the right to want you to not have a gun. It creates a moral dilemma. I want you to not have a gun. I also want one.
There are solutions. I can be hypocritical, the founding fathers were. Or, there are two compromise solutions. We both have a gun. Neither of us have a gun. I can decide which self-defense outcome I prefer.
I have a nature-given belief that the second option protects me better. This is mainly because of measurable outcomes. I have the nature-given right to push policy in that direction.
Where is this bait and switch? So you're gonna attack people to get their guns and call it self defense. I'd think the moral solution would be to take the guns of people who use them to commit crimes.
Aaaaand you've just contradicted you're entire stance in the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. Your arguments here really have a consistency problem.
You're gonna drag them here? That was a case of self defense, where is the contradiction?
Yes we do. We euthanize animals for killing/maiming people, and you already said that attacking/killing someone is a violation of their rights. Once again, your argument isn't even consistent with itself.
I said attacking someone is a violation of their rights when people are involved, not when animals attack people. And I said when we kill animals that attack people we dont describe the situation in terms of rights, people dont have a moral claim to live against animals. Nobody calls that murder, nobody says the animal's attack was unjustified.
Nope. Those two things are unrelated. Defending a living person from an attack is not remotely the same as hunting down a killer after the victim is already dead. You're conflating two different situations to make your point, so once again its not a coherent argument.
They're different, not unrelated... and I was responding to 2 arguments - that rights disappear upon death and cannot transfer to someone else. We hire cops to track down murderers, we wouldn't do that if the victim's right to life disappeared upon death.
OK now that you've finally, begrudgingly, admitted that you are using "nature" as a euphemism for "god", we can move on.
You guys are using "god", I said existence bestows these rights on us. I just dont object if you want to use god in place of existence.
So you believe that your right to own a gun is an extension of your god-given right to self defense. Now we have to address a couple things...
First... Which god?
The god being used as a euphemism for existence/nature.
The Bible (ten commandments) explicitly says "Thou shall not kill"... not "Thou shall not kill... except in self defense". The Bible also says "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord", not "Vengeance is yours, by virtue of a transfer of the victim's right to self defense, says the Lord" The Bible explicitly forbids revenge and says it belongs to god. (See, Romans 12:17-19, citing Deuteronomy 32:35.)
And thats why I cite existence as the source of our rights, not "God". The 10 Commandments dont explicitly say killing is prohibited, Moses and some men killed a man for gathering wood on the Sabbath. You're also jumping between OT and NT, Jews dont accept the latter and Christians do.
So in your view, are we each allowed to make up our own individual personal philosophy of which religion's tenets we want to cobble together in order to derive this right to own a gun from, in order to justify our claim of a god-given right to own a gun? Or is there some actual particular, specific religious philosophy that you are deriving this god-given right from?
Now I'm supposed to defend the world's religions too? You dragged religion into this, not me. The right to self defense is based on everyone's shared 'philosophy'.
Also, the fact that when god created the universe, there were no guns... so how can you be sure that your right to self defense is limited to just guns? Why not thermonuclear weapons to "defend yourself". Do you believe you have the god-given right to personally own thermonuclear weapons for self defense?
The right to self defense limits me to defending against an attacker, blowing up the city is murder. But 'we the people' do have nukes for self defense.
The act of defending yourself, and the right to defend yourself, aren't the same thing though.
Self defense is universal, the right is a moral claim involving people.
I had squirrels in my walls last year. They're an invasive species and not legal to relocate. I euthanized a whole bunch of them for living in the wrong spot.
You need some cats on that farm
