The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

They're asking why animals don't have a right to life if they defend themselves.

The counter-point is that you were defending the right to self-defense, not life, and that we don't punish animals for defending themselves. Just like we don't punish people for defending themselves (except, of course, when we do). We either kill the animals for our convenience or move them for our convenience, but that's only because we deem ourselves more worthy. Our treatment of them is not thought of in terms of 'punishment'.

And then we all snicker at ourselves, because we all know that we're not supposed to kill and displace other humans for our mere convenience. But we know that ain't true. But we all know that we're mostly against the idea, as well.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

I'm not much for reading minds so if you can flesh that out it would be helpful

I thought he was mocking you, but hey I could be wrong. Maybe he also uses animal behavior as the basis of his moral philosophy.

In all seriousness, my issue is that you still haven't even attempted to bridge the is/ought gap. I don't care if something is universal, all kinds of crap is universal. That doesn't make it right, or a right.

 

[Lexicus]

that we don't punish animals for defending themselves.

Yeah we do

 

[Berzerker]

They're asking why animals don't have a right to life if they defend themselves.

The counter-point is that you were defending the right to self-defense and that we don't punish animals for defending themselves. We either kill them for our convenience or move them for our convenience, but that's only because we deem ourselves more worthy. Our treatment of them is not thought of in terms of 'punishment'.

And then we all snicker at ourselves, because we all know that we're not supposed to kill and displace other humans for our mere convenience. But we know that ain't true.

Rights are moral claims between people, not species. Does the chicken I had killed for food have the right to life? No... Nature designed life to survive by eating other life forms. I would argue I have a right to life when it involves other people but not when I'm killed by a hungry lion. The right to life is not moral protection from other critters, although there is evidence defenders are more motivated than attackers so maybe 'the moral high ground' does exist in nature.

I thought he was mocking you, but hey I could be wrong. Maybe he also uses animal behavior as the basis of his moral philosophy.

Oh, he was... I use human behavior too. What do you use?

In all seriousness, my issue is that you still haven't even attempted to bridge the is/ought gap. I don't care if something is universal, all kinds of crap is universal. That doesn't make it right, or a right.

Then we probably have a right to that crap. What does make right or wrong? Nobody wants to be murdered, some people want to murder. One's universal, the other is uncommon. If not even murderers want to be murdered, their hypocrisy tells us what is right and what is wrong. They're doing to others what they dont want done to them.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

Yeah we do

Sure, maybe in microcosm. But not really. We would never allow 'punishment' as a proactive defense to an animal cruelty charge.

In fact, I would say the urge to punish an animal is most easily seen as a moral sickness. People who would be fine with the justice system existing as a source of punishment, merely for punishment sake, would find it easy to be repelled at the idea of punishing an animal for punishment sake.

We much more easily assign moral complicity to people than to animals

I could be wrong, of course. I'm speaking awfully generally for someone who's only vaguely aware of the Canadian legislation around animal cruelty.

 

[Lexicus]

But not really.

No, really. If an animal bites or scratches a human in self-defense we euthanize it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, someone threatens to kill you and you kill them first, thats self defense. The imminence was created with the threat. If you deter them the first time does the threat disappear? No, a reasonable person would think the threat still exists and act accordingly - buy a gun, tell the cops, lay low, find them before they return. All self defense.

Aaaaand you've just contradicted you're entire stance in the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. Your arguments here really have a consistency problem.

But we dont euthanize animals that attack us for violating our rights

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.

The pursuit of justice doesn't die with the victim. If you see someone get attacked the victim's right to defend them self grants you the right to defend them too.

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.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nature's god, that which is responsible for existence. I think Jefferson and some of those folk were deists.

OK now that you've finally, begrudgingly, admitted that you are using "nature" as a euphemism for "god", we can move on. 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 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.)

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?

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?

 

[El_Machinae]

No, really. If an animal bites or scratches a human in self-defense we euthanize it.

Oh, I see. I wish you had assumed I already knew that, it's common knowledge. I was using the parlance that we were using up thread. We were distinguishing punishment from deterrence from Rehabilitation as different goals in the justice system

In that very post I pointed out that we would kill the animal, but that would be a function of us just exercising our convenience. The psychological trigger where we require punishment of wrongdoing isn't strongly triggered by animals.

For example, if someone is on death row, there is a fraction of the population that derives Glee from hearing that he had unpleasant living conditions before he was killed. Conversely, I think that the proportion of people who psychologically Delight in a dog being mistreated before it was put down would be much lower. And the contempt their attitude would bring out in others would cross political divides. Alternatively, the moral permission to treat animals according to our convenience also crosses the political divides.

Heck, we also slap animals. But when we do so it's out of the mentality around Rehabilitation or deterrence. We don't feel the urge to punish animals, because we don't hold them morally culpable

 

[Lexicus]

I wish you had assumed I already knew that, it's common knowledge.

I had assumed you knew that, and then you claimed we don't punish animals for defending themselves.

I was using the parlance that we were using up thread. We were distinguishing punishment from deterrence from Rehabilitation.

The punishment is you did a thing--->now we're doing this thing. Punishment might be justified by rehabilitation or deterrence. Or one could argue that punishment is good for its own sake, the position that UlyssessGrant took. At least, that's my conceptual scheme here.

Heck, we also slap animals.

Uh, "we"? I don't...

 

[El_Machinae]

Righto, you initially presented the idea in terms of Revenge. It morphed into the urge to punish.

When I write on this topic, I distinguish motivations. There's the urge to punish. You called it Revenge. There's the intent to rehabilitate. And there's the intent to deter.

Where I often have to be careful is that I hold it in my head that both recidivism can be deterred and others can be deterred, and make sure I'm clear on that front.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, I said that several pages ago to show that self defense is universal and not created by society

The act of defending yourself, and the right to defend yourself, aren't the same thing though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Chickens don't love the cages, no. But they seem to like them better than getting debeaked. They like killing and eating the weakest hen even more yet. But not always. If you keep them entertained and never let the weakest hen show blood, maybe she's fine even with the beaks, let's go play with the rooster.

 

[metalhead]

Here they come to snuff the rooster

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah yeah.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

 

[Farm Boy]

Protect meeeee.

 

[El_Machinae]

Protect meeeee.

We did. We're helping prevent Iran from getting nukes. Americans have the right to own nukes, see, and Iranians don't.

 

[Farm Boy]

It only works if Iran doesn't really want them, which is the angle I think Candians are rocking if they can help pull it off. NK wanted them. India wanted them. Pakistan wanted them. Israel wanted them. South Africa didn't really want them. Canada doesn't really want them so long as the UK, France, and the US have them. Same with Australia. US nuclear disarmament and current Chinese defense spending would probably impact that some, given 30 years. Probably less, actually.

There's enough differences to call BS on the comparison of an intercontinentally propellable thermonuclear explosive device and a sword, or a spear, or a hammer, or a shotgun, or a pocketknife, or aerosol smallpox.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"intercontinentally propellable"?

Anyway, never seen Starship Troopers I see... what a shame