GirlChat #546523
Re: Positive to positive, negative to ground.
Posted by lgsinmyheart on 2011-December-30 06:11:51 EST, Friday
In reply to Re: Positive to positive, negative to ground. posted by Markaba on 2011-December-30 02:58:09 EST, Friday
"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"
At any rate, defining exactly what a religion is is at best disputable, but by all means, please provide me with evidence that all religious scholars do not include the body of believers as a component or definition of religion. I'll wait . . .
A body which could be of only one. You sound like those union advocates for whom you are not a worker if you are not unionized.
And that is my point. I have the right to unionize or not; with whichever union I prefer. Or to take a union contract and negotiate it alone with the management, if I want to.
Actually, let's examine an actual case: the Flight 93 disaster.
All rights which can be exercised by being left alone and which make no claims on others should be allowed.
In this case, the lives of the terrorists are making a claim on others.
I cannot, for example, be an atheist and a Christian at the same time.
You can believe that Jesus died for your sins, but that God does not exist. I don't see the incompatibility. Ultimately that would make the Crucifixion futile, of course, but you can believe on this simultaneously.
Your mere existence takes up oxygen and space, which are valuable resources for those competing for them.
Natural public goods.
I do remember LGs taking that position.
That rights are valuable? I wouldn't say "valuable" here, but I suppose it helps transmit my position.
That rights are exogenous, I do sustain, while you disagree. That's, I think, our disagreement on this general issue.
See, this notion that you harm no one be simply being is false. The harm you impose by merely existing cannot even be said to be the minimal amount of you can impose, unless you spend every waking moment serving others and only taking what is necessary to live. In that case you may even have a surplus of benefit over harm, but the harm you have inflicted is still not zero. Do you get where I'm coming from here?
This is the broken windows fallacy. Well, a mirror image. Quite interesting, to be sincere.
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- I will call it: - lgsinmyheart on 2011-December-30 06:58:59 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- LOL - Dante on 2011-December-30 07:47:06 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 0)