Humans over other animals

[Michael Archer]

So easy; it doesn't require any work to justify.

And yet I did justify my view of rights.

 

I meant that subjectivism don't need to justify anything; I simply implied that you didn't need to justify it as any justification would be irrelevant.

 

What a mentally healthy human being would find to be in its best interests, living, eating, etc. is deserved by everyone who would benefit from any such thing unless there is a discernable difference between them. There is no ignoring reality in this line of reasoning.

 

So...the fact that you need something entitles you to it. I cannot even begin to say how this statement is responsible for the worst crimes against human rights in history.

 

I need food and I don't have food; does that entitle me to rob it from you? I need healthcare but I can't afford it; does that entitle me to take money from you?

 

On the contrary, it focuses completely on reality.

 

It focuses on a fact and draws incorrect conclusions from that fact.

 

Need =/= entitlement.

 

Furthermore, you claim that I simply believe in rights as though you are doing something different. You're not, hoss. Your perception of rights is no more factual than mine.

 

I'm observing reality. Reality and existence gives us rights.

 

Your last sentence should be the motto for subjectivism. As I said, with subjectivism, you don't need to prove anything; all you have to say is "my interpretation is equally valid regardless of how ridiculous. ". I hate subjectivism, because you can justify literally anything you want.

[Geneaux486]

I meant that subjectivism don't need to justify anything; I simply implied that you didn't need to justify it as any justification would be irrelevant.

 

I ain’t a subjectivist.

 

So...the fact that you need something entitles you to it. I cannot even begin to say how this statement is responsible for the worst crimes against human rights in history.

 

I need food and I don't have food; does that entitle me to rob it from you? I need healthcare but I can't afford it; does that entitle me to take money from you?

 

You deserve the basic necessities to survive no more or less than I do. Whoever is in charge of distributing them is responsible for seeing that they are distributed without prejudice.

 

I'm observing reality.

 

And drawing incorrect conclusions from it, like you say I have done.

 

Your last sentence should be the motto for subjectivism. As I said, with subjectivism, you don't need to prove anything; all you have to say is "my interpretation is equally valid regardless of how ridiculous. ". I hate subjectivism, because you can justify literally anything you want.

 

Again: It’s not subjectivism if what I’m doing isn’t in line with it. I don’t consider myself a subjectivist, and from what you’ve said, I don’t even act like a subjectivist. My views of rights do not literally justify anything, in fact it’s quite the opposite.

[Michael Archer]

I ain’t a subjectivist.

 

Good.

 

You deserve the basic necessities to survive no more or less than I do.

 

Why? Because I need them? What about the guy that looses his basic necessities so I can get them? Doesn't he deserve them?

 

Whoever is in charge of distributing them is responsible for seeing that they are distributed without prejudice.

 

"Whoever is in charge" is the corporation who grew and produced and is responsible for the creation and existence of that resource gets to say who they give them to at what price. They only have a responsibility to themselves (well, aside from the obvious, I mean. e.g. If their product kills someone, they are held responsible.). To dictate the conditions of their work is evil.

 

And drawing incorrect conclusions from it, like you say I have done.

 

Really?

 

Do you dispute the reason=life observation?

 

Unless you can accept this, you don't have the right to tell me what's reality and what's not.

 

I don’t consider myself a subjectivist, and from what you’ve said, I don’t even act like a subjectivist.

 

Really?

 

I recall earlier, you said, "Your perception of rights is no more factual than mine." This implies that there is no "right" definition of rights i.e. rights are subjective.

 

My views of rights do not literally justify anything

 

I didn't say they did; I just said they had the potential.

[Geneaux486]

Why? Because I need them? What about the guy that looses his basic necessities so I can get them? Doesn't he deserve them?

 

Yes, and if he loses something because you obtain it, someone has done something wrong.

"Whoever is in charge" is the corporation who grew and produced and is responsible for the creation and existence of that resource gets to say who they give them to at what price. They only have a responsibility to themselves

 

Then they aren't fit to handle the distribution of the basic things we need to survive.

 

you don't have the right to tell me what's reality and what's not.

 

Likewise.

 

I recall earlier, you said, "Your perception of rights is no more factual than mine." This implies that there is no "right" definition of rights i.e. rights are subjective.

 

No, it does not imply that. What I said I said in response to your assertion that your perception of rights is, well, right. I think it's wrong. Can you say your perception is factually right? No, you cannot. That is not the same as saying there are many different valid perceptions of rights.

 

 

I didn't say they did

 

I didn't say you said I did. I said they don't so as to differentiate them from subjectivism.

[Michael Archer]

Yes, and if he loses something because you obtain it, someone has done something wrong.

 

Which you are advocating by advocating taxation.

 

Then they aren't fit to handle the distribution of the basic things we need to survive.

 

It doesn't matter if you think so. They own it, they produced it, ergo they have all rights to it.

 

Likewise.

 

But you're saying that rights are not a condition of reason and reason=/= life. But they are, as I've explained.

 

Can you say your perception is factually right? No, you cannot

 

Yes I can.

 

If we are to live on earth, we have to use reason. It is right to use reason, as it is right for us to live and survive.

 

Do you contest this?

 

I didn't say you said I did. I said they don't so as to differentiate them from subjectivism.

 

Subjectivism is moral relativism. You say that my view of rights is not right and neither are yours. Rights are moral codes, i.e. morality is relative.

[xxxxxxxxx]

From what I've been thumbing through in you're novel-posts, I can tell that you're drifting away from the original topic. Please keep to the subject at hand.

[Geneaux486]

As you wish, consider it dropped.

[Michael Archer]

QuietGrave, you're absolutely right.

 

It all just comes down to capitalism and statism. There's a thread for that.

 

Why is this thread in the Civilization Issues topic anyway?

[BTGBullseye]

Why is this thread in the Civilization Issues topic anyway?

Because affecting the order of various species affects the future of the entire world...

[xxxxxxxxx]

Why is this thread in the Civilization Issues topic anyway?

Well, it's just because the topic at hand is Humanity over other animals.

 

If it said something like "Americans over other animals", It would be in FFA.

[Michael Archer]

Because affecting the order of various species affects the future of the entire world...

 

True.

 

Man has the power to mold the environment the way he sees fit to make life better for himself; that's part of our rational faculty.

 

This is why I see outlawing DDT is immoral. DDT was, as the people who grew up with pokémon would say, super-effective! Malaria was rampant in Africa and millions of people were dying from it; DDT saved millions of people.

 

Sure, there were some animals that were negatively affected by it, but this is the question: would you rather have eagles' egg shell thin, or millions of humans die? I can not even imagine the evil in someone's mind if they said the former.

 

There was no better pesticide than DDT; it saved millions of lives. It was also never proven that it caused cancer in humans.

[BTGBullseye]

There was no better pesticide than DDT; it saved millions of lives. It was also never proven that it caused cancer in humans.

True, but it was proven to cause severe developmental retardation in children.

 

I don't usually take it seriously when someone says that some product causes cancer, especially since I know that everything everywhere can cause cancer. (Cigarettes have been proven to significantly increase cancer rates though)

[Doom Shepherd]

True, but it was proven to cause severe developmental retardation in children.

 

By who? I can't find a single study that supports this claim.

 

Malaria can cause retardation in infants.

[BTGBullseye]

By who? I can't find a single study that supports this claim.

5th down on a Google search for "ddt health study": http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/another-study-on-human-health-and-ddt-adhd-linked-to-ddt/

 

7th down: http://www.rxpgnews.com/parenting/DDT_in_moms_harmful_to_kids_study_4676_4676.shtml

 

 

Do I really have to Google everything myself?

[Michael Archer]

Bullseye, so are you saying we should ban DDT, since there's a few instances of retardation? Instead, should we let those millions of people die?

 

I remember watching an episode of Penn & Teller's show on vaccinations. At the beginning, they said that some people thought vaccines caused autism. Since one out of every one hundred ten kids are autistic nowadays, they had two sets of one hundred ten bowling pins. On one set, the bumped one pin slightly out of line with the others and then they put a big screen over that set that said, "vaccines". They started throwing bowling balls at both groups, which represented diseases. As you can imagine, the bowling balls bounced harmlessly off the "vaccine" screen, but the other group was ravaged. I thought it was a really great analogy.

 

So this is really similar to what I'm thinking: so a few kids step out of line with DDT as opposed almost every single one getting knocked over by malaria.

[BTGBullseye]

Bullseye, so are you saying we should ban DDT, since there's a few instances of retardation? Instead, should we let those millions of people die?

Yes, considering there are harmless versions out there that do nearly as good a job, and an even better job when paired with another harmless-to-humans insecticide.

[Doom Shepherd]

By who? I can't find a single study that supports this claim.

5th down on a Google search for "ddt health study": http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/another-study-on-human-health-and-ddt-adhd-linked-to-ddt/

 

ADHD does not = retardation. Anyone who thinks it does must be retarded.

 

7th down: http://www.rxpgnews.com/parenting/DDT_in_moms_harmful_to_kids_study_4676_4676.shtml

While that study may indicate "developmental delay," it in no way indicates that the delay is "severe."

 

Do I really have to Google everything myself?

You need to be able to cite your sources accurately, and refrain from the type of exagerration we see here, if you want to be taken seriously.

[BTGBullseye]

ADHD does not = retardation. Anyone who thinks it does must be retarded.

I agree, but last time I saw a psychiatrist it was classified as a form of mental retardation.

 

While that study may indicate "developmental delay," it in no way indicates that the delay is "severe."

Any delay is severe in my book, especially considering how retarded the majority of high school graduates are already.

 

You need to be able to cite your sources accurately, and refrain from the type of exagerration we see here, if you want to be taken seriously.

That makes no sense. I quoted as accurately as possible by giving a link to the site.

 

How is that question exaggerating anything?

[Ross Scott]

While this topic is important to some people, I don't consider it civilization-threatening. I'm moving it to general discussion.

[ProHypster]

Isn't DDT Corrosive, which would mean it would kill plants and maybe harm us too in large doses???