not one for abstract thought are you? This thread is about the justice or otherwise of a policy. It is not my attempt to describe what you are current...
They come from Ipswich. By train. What, exactly, are you asking? We have rights. We recognise them using our reason. It's that faculty that few here k...
It is because force can legitimately be used against those who are violating another's rights and also to make sure people pay restitution. For instan...
As I see it, what these various thought experiments do is motivate the idea that lockdowns violate our rights. I actually think they do this regardles...
On and off, the world over. There is a virus in some places, and most governments have, in response, prevented their citizenry from meeting or placed ...
Once more: if I have an illness that can be cured, but I do not wish to take the medicine that will cure me, am I entitled not to take it? Would you b...
In a futile attempt to bring this back to the argument in the OP rather than the psychology of Australians, here is the important point: Seems to me q...
We're talking about moral rights. You don't need to describe the law of the land (plus I am not in your land). So, put down your big book of laws, and...
No, I don't know what you use the term 'atomized society' to mean. It is not a term I have ever used in my life. Now, it seems that you mean by it a c...
No, Frank, try again. I don't deny legitimacy to the state: I showed how it could be legitimate. Read the OP again. I don't believe I mentioned laying...
Oh, you need to read the OP then. And when you've understood its content - which has clearly yet to happen - you can try and address something in it. ...
Philosophy was done in the OP. It stopped when you started. How about you actually address the argument in the OP, rather than pretending you've read ...
Er, no, my analysis clearly mentions them. So, individuals exist and have rights. Good boy!! Now do you have an imagination in there? If you do, try a...
So, er, just to be clear: do you think individuals do not exist? Or do you think individuals do not have rights? Or - and this is what I suspect is th...
Oh, I see - once more it's my pesky rationalism getting in the way of me seeing what those free from it can perceive so clearly. You sound rather impr...
Most people are also spectacularly stupid and have probably spent a grand total of 10 minutes thinking about this kind of thing, if they've spent any ...
It's an original proposal, but of course I have appealed to familiar ideas about the nature of rights. That's what makes it interesting, or at least, ...
So? You're not addressing or recognizing the point. Again: if I decide that I am going to treat you if you get ill (I didn't ask you - there's no agre...
So, Tim is allowed to stop us meeting if Tim happens to have voluntarily decided that he'll treat us if we get ill?! How does that work, exactly? So, ...
How is the drink driving case analogous? It's like responding 'oh, so we shouldn't arrest murderers?' Imagine there are three people in existence: you...
What about starting a business? That's really bad for your health. There's a very good chance that you'll go bust and go bust through bad luck alone. ...
Imagine that among us there are a small minority of people who lack sufficient self control to be able to resist acting on their sexual urges (you don...
You have ignored the argument I made and your example of HIV works against you. My argument works regardless of the numbers of deaths involved. It's a...
You can lock yourself down if you want. If you don't want to be exposed to a risk of getting a virus from innocent carriers, don't go out. No one is m...
It is a point that Descartes made: when you can't separate existence out from the rest of the concept, then one can be certain that the concept has so...
No, that's entirely unclear too. Like I say, you're just playing with words. Of course definitions have to come to an end, but they should come to an ...
No, it isn't dogmatic. A being who has more power than another, is more powerful, yes? Now, you can use 'omnipotent' to refer to the less powerful if ...
Yes, but those philosophers are confused and did not have the benefit of being exposed to my argument. I have been exposed to theirs, but not they to ...
No, nor me. But his experiment does not show us that materialism is true or do anything to show us that materialism and free will are incompatible. Th...
Beside the point. It could be done in principle, and it's implications would be the same. So the idea that his experiments challenge our free will for...
I have no idea what that means. "Positive" - what does that mean? Does it mean exists, perhaps? I juts don't know what that definition means. That's p...
I don't see that. I just don't see how you arrive at that view at all. Just to reiterate: they don't do anything at all to challenge the idea that we ...
Well, what's in a word? Let's dispense with the word omnipotence and just talk about being all powerful instead - or, what amounts to the same thing, ...
I think God exists. But what exactly are you talking about when you talk of a 'subject of all perfections'? It seems to me that you are simply using t...
I don't see how that follows. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. So he's 'morally' perfect. Well, it is easy enough to imagine that the...
Comments