Posted on 05/19/2002 3:02:10 PM PDT by aconservaguy
Do you mean like some rights come from the federal government, some from the state government, and some from the city government?
Why?
Why?
An excellent question, actually. As Robert A. Heinlein once asked (much more eloquently than I ever could), where is the "right to life" of a sailor whose ship sinks under him in the middle of a storm-tossed ocean? The "right to life" is man's invention, not God's. Its silly even to assume that such a "right" exists at all, unless we accept the possibility that God occasionally falls asleep at the switch by not rescuing every stranded sailor or every cat that gets stuck in a tree.
Can you just tell?
Do you just know?
Does Roscoe posses special insight into these matters which the average ordinary human being does not?
That's the wrong perspective. Death is inevitible for everybody, after all.
The context in considering a "right to life" should be what prohibits an earthly power from willfully and arbitrarily taking the life of an individual.
Our ability? So if an entity (say the government) has the ability to steal your land, rape your wife and kill your children, there is no higher power to which to appeal to justice?
[Where does your right to life come from?]
Does Roscoe posses special insight into these matters which the average ordinary human being does not?
If you even attempted to answer those two basic questions, your "philosophy" would fall apart.
You know it, so you don't dare try.
Explain how.
I've done no such thing, as much as you apparently wish it to be so. On the contrary, I've made the case that there is no such thing as an inherent "right to life", then used an example to illustrate the foolishness of those who continue to blindly spout that line. The fact that you falsely equated my example with health care, employment, and the other red herrings you threw into the pot demonstrates only that you have no answer and are simply throwing verbal feces.
You'll forgive me if I decline to shake your hand.
That's the wrong perspective. Death is inevitible for everybody, after all.
How is it "wrong"? While you correctly state that death is indeed inevitable, you submit no evidence that there is any flaw in my statement that the "right to life" is a man-made construct and idea, and has nothing to do with God. On the contrary, you help make my case for me.
The context in considering a "right to life" should be what prohibits an earthly power from willfully and arbitrarily taking the life of an individual.
The old saying "Whatever gets you through the day" leaps to mind here. I don't kill others because the consequences brought upon me by other earthly powers for doing so would be unacceptable to me, and because I don't need to and have no desire to. If the mental image of some stern-faced guy sitting on a cloud shaking His finger at you is the only thing that prevents you from killing others, then you have the perfect right to use that mental image as your justification. Just don't try to make a "logical" case that all people feel the same way as you do, and that your stern-faced, angry guy in the clouds exists anywhere than in your own mind.
Then kindly explain where this "right to life" is for Heinlein's storm-tossed sailor in my example. I can wait ...
And your 'god, asleep at the switch' line is the silly nonsense, not that the right exists.
Calling a logical argument for which you have no answer "silly" is intellectually dishonest. Of course, you specialize in being intellectually dishonest just about every time you post on FR, so it comes as no surprise to me.
Every type of life fights to its death for existence, proving that the right is evident.
Non sequitur and logically unsupportable. Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so.
Self evident to those who reason.
More non sequitur. Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so.
'Silly' to the roscoes & strela's, - those who are unreasonable.
More non sequitur. Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so.
That's like saying any idea -- or words itself are "man-made constructs." It's true in a sense. But's it's also leads to the conclusion that everything is ultimately pointless. Which of course is an incorrect conclusion.
and idea, and has nothing to do with God.
Those who articulated this concept very much based it on the assumption of a Creator.
I don't kill others because the consequences brought upon me by other earthly powers for doing so would be unacceptable to me . . .
Do you believe guilt is cultural baggage which we should endeavor to discard?
Then kindly explain where this "right to life" is for Heinlein's storm-tossed sailor in my example. I can wait ...
No need to wait. The sailor possesses a right to life, regardless of whether it is threatened by fate.
- This is simple logic for most of us. You're the stupid exception.
------------------------------
And your 'god, asleep at the switch' line is the silly nonsense, not that the right exists.
Calling a logical argument for which you have no answer "silly" is intellectually dishonest.
You made no such logical argument. The 'asleep' line was no more than a silly comment.
The balance of your post is just repetitive and specious, - a misuse of the term 'non sequitur'. - Droll in itself, & unworthy of further comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.