Fascist-humanist

Post #253,139 by JayMehaffey 4/23/06 5:50:35 PM 4/23/06 5:51:10 PM Reply	Fascist-humanist Interesting article on your beliefs. First time I've ever seen a statement of fascist-humanist beliefs, but that is pretty much where your's end up. I think the biggest thing is the huge omission. You created a list that summarize your beliefs about rights, and no where on the list does the right to simply live appear. Combine that with the way you consider collective rights as being more important then individual rights. And what you end up with a sorta fascist-humanism. Where the good of humanity as a whole, in the form of state, trumps the good of individuals. And since our state embodies the best form of facist-humanism, it's rights are more important then the rights of other states. Jay edit: spelling fix Edited by JayMehaffey April 23, 2006, 05:51:10 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #254,708 by marlowe 5/7/06 7:19:19 PM Reply	There's a little thing called logic. It's something that people use when they're not the type to scream "fascist!" at everyone they don't agree with. It's like this: if you're not alive, then you can't exercise rights. So other rights imply right to life. That's what logic looks like. Isn't that neat? ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy! If you don't like my posts, don't click on them. Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link\|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/\|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/] "The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Post #254,712 by JayMehaffey 5/7/06 8:06:28 PM Reply	Then how If the right to live is important to you, how do you reconcile it with supporting the invasion of Iraq? Jay
Post #254,718 by Another Scott 5/7/06 8:47:57 PM Reply	Rules in society aren't black and white. Being alive is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to exercise rights. We don't give infants the right to vote. And [link\|http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcemeteryrights.html\|some rights] exist even for the dead. So saying your version of humanism implies a right to life isn't a very satisfying way to address the question. You really need to define "life" in this context. Is it human volitional motion? Response to stimuli? Breathing? Heart beat? Electrical activity in the cerebrum? Body temperature above 95 F? Cell division? Can a person over 18 forfeit their life to the state as a result of a trial or a decision by a representative of the state? What about a person under 18? What about a fetus? I don't think you can come up with a comprehensive one-size fits all definition that wouldn't result in a police state. "I'm sorry that some blood cells escaped my body and died, officer. I accidently skinned my knee. It wasn't intentional." :-/ If a fertilized egg is a "life", then why isn't an unfertilized egg or a sperm cell? If it is "life", with as much meaning as that for a person over 18, then whose responsibility is it to protect those rights? How intrusive should that protection be? And what about vestigial (or [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin\|parasitic]) twins? Do they have the same rights as their host? As much as you seem to want it to be, modern society isn't black and white. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't stupid, evil, and wrong (as you too often imply or even state directly). Cheers, Scott.
Post #254,801 by tuberculosis 5/8/06 7:23:17 PM Reply	You just heard of it? Now if you could only make use of it, that would be progress. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]

Welcome to IWETHEY!