Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
It means if your good you are allowed to suffer the retardation of psychopathy... Or embrace it with jovial persuit.
So the Declaration of Independence is just bs? lol
Words and thoughts are kind. History is notlawful assembly ?
patriots act ?
Our first president killed people himself for not following him., Wheather he was following the Bible is up to someone else else to make a category for in some random "ninsequential"(somehow passes spell / ) but not nonsequential which I spelled first...Words and thoughts are kind. History is not
It's a legal concept. Part of a social contract.
It simply means that neither the state nor any citizen is entitled to deprive a citizen of his life, freedom or lawful pursuits.
In context, it's perfectly sensible. It's rendered meaningless by careless and inappropriate citation.
No it doesn't.Your right to life completely depends on my motivation to pull the trigger.
That's their prerogative, but I'm not sure how they expect to enforce a supra-legal concept without enlisting the help of the law.Many people see it as more than a legal concept.
So, they can try to change the current law through +/- democratic means, or else resort to illegal means of attempting to enforce their own notion, in which case they'll likely go to jail.E.g. Fetuses have a right to life regardless of what current law says.
Which is the social contract.What I was trying to say is that the only 'rights' you have are those that nature and society allow you,
Certainly. Contracts are breached and nullified all the time. The social ones are no exception: there may be a revolution or coup d'etat; a radically different faction may rise to power through various means and by various methods.and they can be taken away at any time.
Motive+opportunity+means .... + the wits to evade capture or willingness to pay the legal price.Your right to life completely depends on my motivation to pull the trigger.
WikipediaSanctity of life,
In religion and ethics, the inviolability or sanctity of life is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life that are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated.
No it doesn't.
You violating someone's right does not mean they don't have that right.
That's what societies are.
It certainly can be - and is - enforced.A right that can't be enforced is a meaningless right.
Yes they do.Someone living alone in a forest has no right to life
No, he still does.Someone living alone in a forest has no rights
Point taken. Even hermits are covered by the laws of their nation, whether they acknowledge those laws or not.No, he still does.
Do you suppose the law enforcement of that country, coming across his bullet-ridden body would say "Well, we didn't know him, so I guess it's a wash"?
A right that can't be enforced is a meaningless right. Rights only exist as legal terms. There are no inalienable rights. Someone living alone in a forest has no right to life
Point taken. Even hermits are covered by the laws of their nation, whether they acknowledge those laws or not.
(aamof, I've spent many hours attempting to identify the remains of random guys who went off into the woods and offed themselves or had help doing it. It's a lot easier if the rusted shot-gun has the guy's thumb-bone still in the trigger guard.)
So the Declaration of Independence is just bs? lol
He won't understand you. The question, though, is whether, as you raise your gun to shoot him, he has a right to life, because you can understand that.Try telling a hungry grizzly that you have a right to life.
The guard taking you to the gas chamber is presumably infringing on any right to life you might have. That doesn't make the concept meaningless. Infringing on rights is considered a moral wrong (and sometimes also a legal wrong). The existence of an infringement does not negate the right.Explain your right to life to the guard taking you to the gas chamber. It's a meaningless concept.