Barack Obama on Gun Control.

I was showing the other side.

You can give up being a natural born citizenship by, uh giving up your citizenship,

 

It's amazing how Shredderbeam's comments always seem to be pulled directly from whatever attack strategy McCain is using in his commercials at the moment.

It's amazing who will vote for you when even the opposing candidate's campaign agrees that you're better suited to handle economics then they are.

 

There's a difference, yet it is still taking a life. That is my only point.

It's no documented, or written right. It's a natural right. Unless your argument holds that you are born to die, then there really isn't a counter, except if you chose to answer a statement with a question, fending me off with the burden of answering.

Is just like : Why do they have the right to live? The same reason you have the right to live.

Is a monkey rational?

I need that answer. I mean, what are the differences? They have more hair than us, they speak an entirely different language, and they go about with there physical manners differently than us.

 

Yes, it is still taking a life. Unfortunately, one type of taking a life is bad, and the other is not bad.

A natural right, great. Why do they have this natural right?

No, I have a right to life because of my rationality, and because I can grasp the concept of mutual respect of rights.

They're not really rational, they're about as intelligent as a two year old, and they won't necessarily respect my rights, or each others.

Also, monkeys don't speak a language.

 

It's not as if a bill of rights has been written for animals, and they aren't rational beings, but they still feel pain. There are laws against that animal cruelty. So in a sense, they do have the right not to be harmed. Hunting, I believe, is a breach in this law because people no longer need to hunt for their food, they do it just because they like saving a couple bucks and watching a deer die a painful death indifferently. As to why they have the right to not be abused and hurt, it just comes down to your moral character and if you actually care about living things. I can't prevent you from hunting, as it is legal, and I'm not saying animals should never be slaughtered, as it CAN be very necessary, in the way of farming and food provision to society.
I'm just against them being killed for no reason, just for the sport of it, because animals, believe it or not, are part of nature and the food chain, and over-hunting can really screw things up. (such as buffaloes being wiped out by settlers and whales growing extinct from hunters, the list goes on and on but) unjust poachers ruin the food chain and that, I suppose, is a valid reason why animals shouldn't be unnecessarily killed.

 

I'm a libertarian. I'm not a McCain supporter. I merely recognize Obama's program for what it is.

I think it's a bit more to do with the "I'm a Democrat, and you're sick of Republicans", and the "I'll tax the rich and give you money!" more than the economics management.

Wall of text.

Laws do not define morality. I'm looking for a logical reason as to why they have rights.

Why does being able to feel pain grant rights?

 

Hunting supports the food chain, believe it or not.

We kill the deer, there's more food for the other deer. More space for the other deer, etc.

There's 'hunting season' for a reason.

And there's times when you only kill a doe, for that very same reason.

 

Wall of text, that of which you clearly skimmed because of your quick response that seemed to have missed my point that unnecessary killing of animals screws up population and food chains in nature, and that is technically what's wrong with it. If you want the reason I know you're going to refuse, I feel bad for them.

 

Sure, it screws up the food chain. If that directly impacts me, then that is a valid reason not to do it...but that's my call.

"Wall of text" means "please start a new paragraph once in a while".

 

Well, the food chain will ultimately affect us, seeing as we are at the top of it. This mostly pertains to overfishing, whaling, etc.

 

This is where competition comes in. You are not guaranteed a fair supply of the world's natural resources.

 

Which, is why you can get slapped with a HUGE fine for not having tags for what you're supposed to be hunting for.

And they will take your firearm to.

 

Your entire point seems to be based around, "They don't have a right to live because they don't respect my rights. They don't respect my rights because they were born that way." If this is the case, then the way they were born gives others the right to kill them.

Now THAT is ridiculous. That's like saying that if your child was born blind and deaf, it gave someone else the right to kill it. They do not respect that persons rights, because they can not understand them.

Which brings me to my question. What rights are you expecting a deer to respect, in order for it to be deemed worthy of living?

Surely, since a monkey isn't rational, and has the intelligence of barely a two year old, and therefore it would be no harm for one to simply die, then a two year old baby isn't rational, and has the intelligence of that his/her age, and therefore it would be no harm for one to simply die. Unless you decide to bring up the old, "Well, that baby can grow and learn to respect my rights, as a monkey cannot.".

This would not be a good argument on your part because it would mean that the time in between being an infant, and that which that baby can learn rationality, and learn to respect rights .. In between those two periods, it isn't worthy of living. <--Sorry, kind of an irregular runon sentence. Ah well.

Oh, and monkey's don't speak a language recognized by any human. One monkey can, in theory, communicate to another monkey. They don't use hand symbols, and it hasn't been proven that they can speak telepathically, so the only other option is a language.

 

Quite right. They are born without rationality, and thus, do not deserve rights.

False analogy. A blind and deaf person is certainly a rational being, and can respect my rights perfectly well. A monkey cannot.

I would expect it to be rational, first of all, and to be capable of living among others without attacking them. Given that deer have panicked and attacked innocent bystanders before, I can safely conclude that they have failed both of these tests.

 

You've ignored my example. A baby isn't born rational, because a baby is neither logical, or able to correctly be reasonable. A baby is sane, but so is a monkey.

So, we have one person. That person is both deaf and blind. What rights could that person respect?

What of the crazy man who isn't fully okay in the brain, and starts to panic, and attacks an innocent bystander. Are they deserving of life?

 

What about a mental retard or vegetable? Is it ok to kill them because they cannot comprehend nor acknowledge your rights? Life and death shouldn't be based solely on those things.

 

Penalty for murder can be death.

 

My example did not include that the crazy man killed someone. He simply attacked someone.

 

Correct. A baby would get about as much rights as a monkey.

Right to life, property, etc.

No, they are not. There is nothing wrong with killing that man.

It depends on their level of mental retardation. If they're just stupid, then no, for they are still rational and capable of respecting my rights. If they're completely out of it, to the extent that you can't even communicate with them, and they're in nobody's possession, then sure, go for it.

I don't see a problem with killing vegetables if the family doesn't care.

Why shouldn't they?

 

So, you agree that I could sit a baby on this side of the couch, and sit a monkey on the other. Shoot the monkey, shoot the baby, and you would think that I did nothing wrong?

The disabled man respects your right to life, but an animal does not. Any man, disabled or not, could defy your right to life and property, however, so could any human.

Your examples have reach a level to where if I merely stepped on your shoes out of frustration, I deserve to die. I'm a rational being, however, remember .. I did not respect your property.

So, my example of the man who's a bit messed up in the head deserves death, however for the other man, who's retardation can reach exceeding points, gets to have his life in the decision of the men with guns?

Sigh. What good is there arguing between two people, both whom morals back them up. All that can be done is to bring up examples, and have them opposed. This has turned into a race of who will crack first, evidently.