CM156 said:
InfiniteSingularity said:
Agayek said:
InfiniteSingularity said:
I support your right to earn a living. But I also support any given person's right to live - and if they have to steal to live, they are justified in doing so, because right to life trumps all.
I also believe you have NO right to end someone's life. As I said, their right to life is far greater than your right to your property. And if it was switched around, if you were poor, and needed to steal to live, then your right to life is greater than someone else's right to their property. It works both ways. And yeah, it can be cruel, but if you earn over $300,000 a year, you can spare some for those in need. And killing someone who needs some money, and has to steal for money, is far more cruel.
I don't believe in lethal force at all. You value your $300,000 more than someone else's life? You're a prick. Seriously. I hate guns, do you know why? Because it makes killing easy - you can kill someone without remorse, which significantly degrades the worth of human life, because people are primitive uncaring dicks who measure the worth of something by their emotional reaction to it - hence, money > human life.
I don't care how much money you earn, you don't have a right to decide when someone else's life ends, even if they steal from you. If someone needs to steal to live, then they are justified because they have a right to live. Everyone has an equal right to live. You do not get priority if you have more money, which is essentially what you are saying - if you have more money, you are worth more and have more of a right to live.
I honestly can't believe people still believe that
Just an honest question here.
Why is the life of someone who attacked me worth more than my property? They willingly attacked me, cognizant of the fact there was at least a 50% chance I would fight back. The sheer fact that they followed through with it meant they willingly accepted the consequences of that decision.
So why is it such a bad thing to deliver those consequences?
It's an honest question I've asked several people with similar viewpoints to yours and I've never received a valid answer. Why does my attacker get to abandon personal responsibility when the consequences get too harsh?
My confusion stems from the basic principles of my own philosophy, wherein individual liberty and personal responsibility go hand-in-hand as the most important values for someone to carry. One should be free to make whatever choices they wish. That freedom carries with it a responsibility to accept the consequences of those choices. If I go to attack someone, I fully expect them to fight back, and I accept that as a consequence. Why does my attacker not bear the same responsibility?
Because life is of greater value than material possessions. People only have one life; yet money can be refunded, property can be replaced, but you only have one life. And in (almost*) ANY circumstance, ending someone's life is wrong, because it
their life. They have all rights to it, not you, nor anyone else, and no one has the right to control when someone's life ends. Only that person, or nature gets to decide that. Why, you may ask? Because you have one life, and thus, you have the right to do with it as you please. This applies to
everyone. You as well. No one else has the right to command the end of someone else's one life.
It's like I was saying - everyone has an equal right to live, no more, or no less, than your fellow man. And I am honestly baffled that people can try to justify putting material possessions or wealth over the life of another human being.
(*I don't believe in absolutes, but I am yet to find a situation where someone deserves to die. I am not one to rule it out though)
Again, what puts a right to live above property? That it can be replaced?
What about things with sentimental value? A watch that belonged to my gradfather my be worth $1000 to you, but it is priceless to me. You may use it to eat or pay for property of your own, but I will never get that piece of my grandfather back. Also, if you are robbed, as in on the street, your property cannot be so easily replaced.
Also, saying you don't believe in absolutes is an absolute in and of itself.
And as much as I am
Loathed to invoke Goodwin's law, do you think that no life is wicked enough that it should be ended? I can name several
Also, you keep harping on the fact that the rich don't need it to live. I'm sorry, but again, that's not how the real world works.
EDIT: And if I may
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
Leviticus 19:15 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
This sums up my thought on the matter.
However, I can see when a topic is getting nowhere. Thus, you may have the last word on this.
I wish you a good day, and hope that you can undersand why I think what I do.
I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom how someone's life is of lesser value to money. It's selfish - plain and simple. And yeah, the rich don't need all that money they have - someone else in the world needs that money
Also, the Bible ≠ good. Don't try that on me
CM156 said:
InfiniteSingularity said:
I support your right to earn a living. But I also support any given person's right to live - and if they have to steal to live, they are justified in doing so, because right to life trumps all.
So just to clarify. Needing something is more important than earning something.
You asked the questions - this is going off topic:
You did not earn your money by doing as you were told, following the crowd, not asking questions and taking what authorities told you as gospel. That's all you did, that's all you'll ever do. You went to school, you learned what you were told, you believed what you were told like a sheep. You did the tests, as you were told, without question, you passed, because you dedicated all your spare time to education because, well, because
the school told you it was important. You went to college/university, chose your course, did as you were told so you could pass. Got your degree, and now you have a job. You wake up, go to work, do as you are told, go home, sleep. Every day. And if you don't do that, chances are you're just telling other people what to do, which is even worse.
You have done nothing of value - just dedicated your life to serving other people so you can live.
You also have to remember that a lot of poor people don't have the money to afford a good education in order to get a good job in order to live. They can't go to college because they don't have the money. So of course they need money. And if you came from a poor household, you may not oven have the opportunity to go to school, for a multitude of reasons. The world is not quite so black and white.
I also believe you have NO right to end someone's life.
And I think you have no right to take my stuff.
You'll live without your "stuff". That person has a right to life, everyone does. Yes you have a right to your property, but you'll get along. You'll be okay; This person you just killed has one life, and it has been miserable for years because he's been living in poverty and neglected by selfish people, like yourself, who are capable but not willing to help. Thus, he has to resort to stealing, as a last resort. Whereas your property is just...that. Items. Things. Your life is not things, your life is not your possessions,
you are not what you own. You are your life.
As I said, their right to life is far greater than your right to your property.
Why? What did they do?
Nothing. Does it matter? Do you not value the life of other people? Or are they just getting in the way of your wealth, of your accomplishments?
And if it was switched around, if you were poor, and needed to steal to live, then your right to life is greater than someone else's right to their property. It works both ways.
Riddle me this. Suppose you are hobo A. I am hobo B. You rob someone at knifepoint for their wallet containing $50. I need that money to live to. AM I justified it taking it from you? And are you then from me? The arguemnt breaks down after that.
I'm pretty sure I said that stealing from
someone well off is the case in point. If I didn't, i'm saying it now. So no, because I need it just as you are. But someone who has money in excess doesn't need that $50 I just stole. Yea, it's subjective, get over it - life doesn't work with hard-and-fast easy-to-solve values like "stealing is bad because the law says so". It's much more complex and intricate than that, there are grey areas everywhere.
And yeah, it can be cruel, but if you earn over $300,000 a year, you can spare some for those in need. And killing someone who needs some money, and has to steal for money, is far more cruel.
It would also mean fewer theives, which is better
Are thieves not people? Yes, less thieves are better, but you would have no thieves with a better way of distributing monetary wealth so you don't have incredibly rich people and incredibly poor people, which is an unbalanced society.
I don't believe in lethal force at all.
So if someone enters your house with a gun, and is going to kill you, you do what now?
Self defence, mate. Defending your life is a lot more than defending your cash.
You value your $300,000 more than someone else's life? You're a prick.
And you are a meany-face. What is this, 8th grade?
Sorry, I'm a little sick of inconsiderate people who have no regard for the rights and lives of others.
Seriously. I hate guns, do you know why? Because it makes killing easy
Er, that's rather the point. I can defend myself with them.
But are you? Or are you defending your cash? Because I tell you, your money is fuck all. That's right. It's not worth a human life, not one. Defending yourself, or your family, is a different issue, but when it comes to material possessions, a human life comes not even close.
- you can kill someone without remorse, which significantly degrades the worth of human life, because people are primitive uncaring dicks
Then why do you care about them? At all?
You've deliberately divided up my points, to make them seem different to what they actually are. Clever.
who measure the worth of something by their emotional reaction to it - hence, money > human life.
Because my money does not try to take itself away from me
You seem to have missed the point - guns reduce the worth of a human life, because you can end one with the press of a button. People don't come to terms with death anymore because guns make it too easy to kill someone, with no remorse - it has no emotion or sense of loss attached; it's all mechanical. No one feels bad for shooting someone because it doesn't feel quite real enough to have a proper emotional reaction to it. Give people knives - that way, they can watch their victim die slowly and feel terrible about the pain they've caused someone. But guns are fucked.
I don't care how much money you earn, you don't have a right to decide when someone else's life ends, even if they steal from you.
So, to clarify, protecting what you own is more evil than taking what you did not earn?
Not at all. But with lethal force, definitely
If someone needs to steal to live, then they are justified because they have a right to live.
Live yes. Take from others no.
If they have to take to live, then they have to take. They still have a right to live
Everyone has an equal right to live. You do not get priority if you have more money,
But you do get priority if you don't but really want some. Good to know.
Um, no. We're talking about
life. Not your money. No one's life is more important, or takes priority, over another's. Your
life is no more important whether you have $65 million or $2. Your money, however, is of much less importance if you have more of it.
which is essentially what you are saying - if you have more money, you are worth more and have more of a right to live.
No. I am saying that I should be able to protect myself, my family, and my property, all with lethal force. If a person knows "If I rob this person, they may shoot me", they are far less likely to do it.
Yourself? Yes. Family? Yes. Property? Fuck no. Indirectly, however, you are saying that people with more money have more of a right to live. You may not mean it, but that is what you are saying.
I honestly can't believe people still believe that
And I honestly can't believe that someone thinks that needing something outweights earning something.
Well it kinda does, if it's needed to live. See start of post.
