Gun control ... actual question

[Lancecastor]

The legal doctrine of ferae naturae conflicts with what you are saying.

 

[Paul_Chance]

The legal doctrine of ferae naturae conflicts with what you are saying.

Not really - as a common law doctrine it actually protects your natural right to liberty (not being sanctioned for something you didn't have any control over) or property (the person who actually "takes" the wild animal gets to keep it).

Now, keep in mind that even natural rights are breached routinely by society - it was just in the mind of Natural Rights philosophers an inherent injustice - even if it was completely legal. A more serious challenge is eminent domain (which is why the hard core Natural Rights folks froth at the mouth about that one too) - though even eminent domain requires compensation for the taking.

 

[MGurkus]

[Threats of physical harm against other users are prohibited per our forum guidelines] and are cause for permanent banning.

 

[butters]

same admin message as hashtag received - and yet lace's still posting

 

[chillywilly2]

same admin message as hashtag received - and yet lace's still posting

You should report that

 

[butters]

You should report that

oh, my poor aching sides

 

[Lancecastor]

Not really - as a common law doctrine it actually protects your natural right to liberty (not being sanctioned for something you didn't have any control over) or property (the person who actually "takes" the wild animal gets to keep it).

You had previously said that natural law applied to all living things, yes?

Ferae Naturae confirmed the biblical man's position at the top of the pecking order of dominion over animals.

Hence the conflict in your position.

 

[Tarzan_]

same admin message as hashtag received - and yet lace's still posting

and so is hash.

moo!

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

and so is hash.

moo!

Piss off, catfisher.

 

[Hypoxia]

All creatures have a right to life (indeed, if we stick to the pure evolutionary model, ala Darwin et. al.) "life" is the driving force behind all behavior and that nature itself rewards the expression of the right, survival of fittest, where the fittest in Darwinian terms is that entity which is most able to breed successfully and so continue their genes.

One of the WTF threads here recently hosted a batch of images of creatures devouring other creatures. There's a worried-looking mouse peering from the mouth of a satisfied-looking bullfrog. I guess their right to life is conditional: you've a right to live until you are eaten. Everything eventually is eaten. Therefore the right to life must be fought for, to delay lunchtime

Also, evolution, the "survival of change over time," has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest," a phrase Darwin never used. Adaptation to specific conditions drives survival. 'Fitness' becomes circular reasoning: it's fit because it survived, and it survived because it's fit. Duh. And non-living things evolve. Evolution has become the standard model for many fields.

The right to liberty is expressed even more eloquently in nature, since almost no known animal imprisons or enslaves other animals.

Ants herd enslaved honeydew aphids. Also,

The Polyergus Lucidus is a slave-making ant only found in the eastern United States. It is incapable of feeding itself or looking after its offspring without assistance and must parasitize members of its own species or close relatives in order to survive. It will raid other nests and carry the pupae away to be reared and eventually grow to become workers or, in this case, slaves in their own colony.

And,

One organism benefits as a result of the work of another, and the working one receives no benefit and may be harmed.

For example, a parasite may infect a fish. The fish provides shelter, food, and a place to reproduce for the parasite. The parasite gives nothing to the fish. The fish is slave to the parasite.

This is just one example of a parasitic relationship in nature. Many others exist, and all are a form of slavery.

Back to natural rights. If they follow the "right to life" model, then all rights exist only when they're fought for. Our right to free speech dies when we're gagged, as does our right to peaceably assemble when thugs in or out of uniform inflict violence. And my right to arm rubber duckies... we'll skip that.

 

[butters]

and so is hash.

moo!

go for it

i no longer care. just don't expect me to read or respond before you're banned again. seems a little unfair that you get banned and lance remains, having received the same warning as you for threats of physical violence

 

[KimGordon67]

Back to natural rights. If they follow the "right to life" model, then all rights exist only when they're fought for. Our right to free speech dies when we're gagged, as does our right to peaceably assemble when thugs in or out of uniform inflict violence. And my right to arm rubber duckies... we'll skip that.

Re: your second point above - I'm not sure about that. 'Rights', by their nature, still exist whether or not we're able to practice them. Isn't that the point of expressing a certain range of things as 'rights' - if we don't have those particular things, we should have them ... of course, then we get into an argument about who 'should' be making that happen. But gagging someone doesn't remove their right to free speech - it just prevents them from practicing it.

But your first point comes around to the question I was going to ask next. Let's assume that, even if we can't agree that there are 'natural' rights, we can (generally) agree that people have rights, and at a base level, that those would include the right to life, liberty, and property.
So the 'right to life' then (somehow) morphs into the right to defend oneself - I can see the logic in that.
My question this is does this right only involve the act of defending oneself against direct attack, or does one the right to defend one's safety? They are slightly different things - the first presupposes an immediate and obvious threat to your life posed by another person/animal/state(?). The second is more about optimising your environment to lessen the likelihood of such a thing happening. (That's a slight over-simplification of my point, but I think it's clear enough.)

 

[Que]

False. A right, natural or otherwise, doesn't cease to exist just because someone is infringing upon it. It's still there.

 

[Que]

Beat me to it.

 

[Lancecastor]

threats of physical violence

?????

 

[Tarzan_]

go for it

i no longer care. just don't expect me to read or respond before you're banned again. seems a little unfair that you get banned and lance remains, having received the same warning as you for threats of physical violence

You suck at splitting and at assessing risk for violence, nurse Butters.

Hash threatened to call Emerson's wife and his workplace. Breach of forum rules.
Your bfff Sean threatened to beat up Denny - and he's still here.
Lance's comments were general, no specific target.

Given that Lance's comments were vague and general and Sean's were specific: Sean should be banned, not Lance.

In saying that, it's a private website. The owners have the right to enforce the rules as they see fit, not because Butters demands it.

 

[Lancecastor]

Tarzan makes a very good point about sean, Butters.

If you're really all about what's "fair"...why aren't you campaigning against the ultra violent sean?

Turns out you're not very fair after all, are you? (sadness)

How about you squeeze some lemons and make some lemonade out of this funk you've been in for so many years?

Maybe instead of leaving lit forever, you should take a litbreak.

Do some yoga. Maybe some bull-wrestling. Blow off some, uh...steam? Taste some cream?

20 posts a day for 7 years...that's a LOT...and you deserve to be happy.

Maybe go visit your children? Fly them over for Christmas in America?

 

[MGurkus]

?????

You made a comment about "raping a certain member". Rape is violence, tough guy.

 

[MGurkus]

It's no wonder the spaz from the jungles of pakistan doesn't see rape as being violent. One gets numb to it after a while, eh dishrag?

 

[Lancecastor]

You made a comment about "raping a certain member". Rape is violence, tough guy.

Nonsense, I would never threaten to rape a member.

There must have been some misunderstanding.

Must have been some kind of mistake.

 

[MGurkus]

Nonsense, I would never threaten to rape a member.

There must have been some misunderstanding.

Must have been some kind of mistake.

Must have been, you'd never joke about rape. Have you thought of joining lit's victim's club? AJ and queerbait have a spot open.

 

[Lancecastor]

Must have been, you'd never joke about rape.

Oh, I'd certainly joke about it, everyone knows that.

But threaten violence? Never.

 

[MGurkus]

go for it

i no longer care. just don't expect me to read or respond before you're banned again. seems a little unfair that you get banned and lance remains, having received the same warning as you for threats of physical violence

Laurel has made it clear that some can get away with things that others can't. If you don't like it you could always ask for your money back. I could name a dozen people who have violated the rules worst than Lance did and they are still here. Maybe Laurel is getting tired of you.

 

[Hypoxia]

False. A right, natural or otherwise, doesn't cease to exist just because someone is infringing upon it. It's still there.

Again, the idea of "natural rights," like a 'soul', cannot be verified. They leave no markers.

Different cultures honor varie 'rights'. What is humanly universal? Biological basics -- the need to eat, void, fuck, sleep, dream. Everything else is social. Societies set taboos and rituals, and classify stuff, pigeonholing its status: mandatory, good, acceptable, banned, etc. Private ownership, freedom of expression and travel and faith -- are these universal basic rights? Not in many cultures. Slave-owning was a 'right' in USA. Has that right vanished? Did it ever exist?

Saying a right exists does not make it so. Rights are aspirations, not realities.

 

[Hypoxia]

But threaten violence? Never.

Not even shin-kicking? Or nougies, or injun burns, or earlobe pinching? Really?

Suppose you were a firearms addict. I'd ask: since you don't mind shooting, would you mind being shot? And if not, why not post your address so we can find you? Yeah, just suppose. Is that a threat of violence?