"Kill-or-be-killed" Self-Defense Guru Banned from U.K.

[Magpie]

DNA doesn't make you special. Not at all. Sentience on the other hand does. Show me a babboon, computer or mould that can pass a Turine Test and I will advocate its rights while they are reasonably practicable.


.

Point of order, but baboons ARE sentient. As are scallops.

[TomTomKent]

Point of order, but baboons ARE sentient. As are scallops.

Yes, and when one passes a Turin test and can be shown to communicate at a human levelof sentience I will discuss if and when it is distinguishable from humanity.

[Ally]

Considering that there are in fact people with actual human DNA who cannot pass a TurinG test, does that mean they do not qualify for human rights? I mean if it's not about DNA but sentience as established by your arbitrary test, then by reasoned deduction, there are many humans on the planet who do not qualify for "human" rights.

[The Good Michael]

Yes, and when one passes a Turin test and can be shown to communicate at a human levelof sentience I will discuss if and when it is distinguishable from humanity.

What about severely retarded people and congenital idiots?

Mike

[TomTomKent]

UOTE=Ally;221138]Considering that there are in fact people with actual human DNA who cannot pass a TurinG test, does that mean they do not qualify for human rights? I mean if it's not about DNA but sentience as established by your arbitrary test, then by reasoned deduction, there are many humans on the planet who do not qualify for "human" rights.[/QUOTE]

How does a human fail a turing test? The methodology is for a non-human test to communicate through a blinded means, and if it is mistaken for a human to have a defacto human level of intellect and sentience. Even if a human was mistaken for non-human that is not a failure to pass. So your declaration is nonsense.

Or do humans have non-human intelligence? How many humans are there with an intellectnotoriginating in their brain? Are you under the mistaken belief a catatonic human wouldnot "pass" a test not viable to be applied to them?

Some further notes. The difference between shoes and guns is a gun is not a reasonable benchmark for the minimum standard of life you would expect access to if you were everto find yourself in the care of another. A gun is not. If you found yourself in a strange town in astrange land and you had money you would expect access to shoes, clothes, water, etc. Access to those but not a gun, cocaine, or luxuries. Access to services that may provide legal luxuries, expecting no restriction not placed on others is the point. I should have said you have no more right to a gun than any other luxury.


But if you are concerned about the unethical treatment of child labour, or for that matter the right of a woman to dress as she likes and not be raped, a persons right to a fair trial regardless of skin colour, your families right to an education, your own right to be paid forthe work you do for an employer and access to mechanisms to claim that money if you arescrewed, you might want to consider that the human rights conventions are the best yardstick for changing these. Changing the name and arguing an inate right doesn't alter the content of your argument. Yes you have a human right to a family life, and a right to reasonable measures. If you believe in it or not, you are only quibbling the extent of that right.

Then again I would also argue that if you acknowledge others in the wider world are enslaved by the system, in your own land or others, you have pretty much explained why human rights are important, and why a modest few percent of your taxes pay for helping others instead of just the services you use. There have been whole cities who never assumed they would be on the recieving end of the help.

[Ally]

As pointed out, there are extremely mentally handicapped people who would not meet basic levels of human intelligence and sentience and have been proven to have basically the same level of sentience as a pig.

So I ask you. If "human level" intelligence and sentience are the requirements for "human rights" are these people excluded?

A severely mentally retarded person would not meet the basic "intelligence and sentience" standard of a human being. So are they excluded from human rights?

[TomTomKent]

What about severely retarded people and congenital idiots?

Mike

Why would I remove rights once offered? When I grant them to. Scallops and chimps should I also discriminate between them to?

To be clear, exactly what rights is it you don't think these people should be allowed?

[Ally]

So to clarify, despite what you stated previously, it is all about Human DNA as opposed to actual sentience that imbues people with these magical human rights. Before you stated that it was sentience that made a person special, now you are retracting that. Just pointing that out....

DNA doesn't make you special. Not at all. Sentience on the other hand does.

[TomTomKent]

As pointed out, there are extremely mentally handicapped people who would not meet basic levels of human intelligence and sentience and have been proven to have basically the same level of sentience as a pig.

So I ask you. If "human level" intelligence and sentience are the requirements for "human rights" are these people excluded?

A severely mentally retarded person would not meet the basic "intelligence and sentience" standard of a human being. So are they excluded from human rights?

Of course they are not excluded.

You asked what made humans different from animals, i conceded a requirement I would have to include any other species or AI. Yep Im open to an inclusive policy.

Do you know what the strawman fallacy is? Is there any reason you feel the need to joust against an argument Im not making?

Do you think acknowledging human rights precludes acknowledging the standards of treatment you would expect to be shown to animals? Or those unable to advocate their own rights?

Why?

[TomTomKent]

So to clarify, despite what you stated previously, it is all about Human DNA as opposed to actual sentience that imbues people with these magical human rights. Before you stated that it was sentience that made a person special, now you are retracting that. Just pointing that out....

Yep. You read my posts. Humans as a species are capable of sentience . So we all get the same rights. Show me any other species capable of the same level of sentience (by a benchmark provided) and the rest of that species gets the same rights.
Happy to clarify.

Whats the difference between that and your inate rights?

[Ally]

Nope. I did read your post. Being "capable of sentience" is not the same thing as having it. And you said it wasn't DNA that made you special it was sentience. Now you are changing your statement and admitting it is purely DNA regardless of sentience that gives one these magical "human rights". That nobody, not even you, practices.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. First you say you have the right to buy shoes, three posts later, you say you don't have the right to own anything.

I am not entirely sure what you are even arguing any more.

[TomTomKent]

The right to a standard of living, for example the same access to shoes i can afford to buy isentirely different from claiming a special pleading to own a gun. I said you had no more right to own a gun than anything else, and I should have added the caveat "that is notpart ofthe basic standard of living you should expect anybody to have."
If I worded it baddly Im happy to clarify. But it is not a contradiction unless you are going out of your way to make a straw man. Sorry, but that is quite clear. In no way mean or form is access to a gun a basic level of quality of life, on a par with food,clothes, shoes, and somewhere to live. On no level is "fare access to the same services as others with out discrimination" the same "my right to own what I want." Sorry, not going to wash. Amazinglyenough if you were in prison you could reasonably expect access to a basic quality of life, including shoes, or food, but a gun? Xbox? A nice vase?

Oh look at that. They are seperate issues. Hope thats clear, even if you disagree.

Also happy to clarify that if you show me a scallop that communicate on a human level I will offer the same rights to scallops regardless of how much DNA they have in common. Hardly a contradiction given I made the same point about machineintelligence with out DNA.

Now perhaps you could kindly explain what it is that makes your "innate rights" any different from human rights?

As to your confusion what I am arguing? I'm respoding to questions about my views on human rights. If they are derails I will ignore them,but remember you brought up the issue of what qualifies humans to expect them.

Lets try a different way: tell me which human rights are not included in your innate rights.

[Ally]

The right to a standard of living, for example the same access to shoes i can afford to buy isentirely different from claiming a special pleading to own a gun. I said you had no more right to own a gun than anything else, and I should have added the caveat "that is notpart ofthe basic standard of living you should expect anybody to have."

Ah I see. So not only do you get to decide the rights that all people share, but you and you alone, your morality and yours alone gets the right to decide what precisely the limits of those rights are. You have a very interesting way of looking at the world when you believe that you get to decide for everyone else what is necessary to their lives. And apparently, shoes are definitely on that list. Not even shoes that you make for yourselves, but shoes that someone else is required to make, FOR YOU, so that you can have the standard of life you deem the correct one. As I said, interesting perspective.

Amazinglyenough if you were in prison you could reasonably expect access to a basic quality of life, including shoes, or food, but a gun? Xbox? A nice vase?

Oh look at that. They are seperate issues. Hope thats clear, even if you disagree.

Er...as I have already said, I don't think criminals have any rights at all and ought to be shot for the predatory moochers that they are. So why would I think they should get an xbox or shoes (something I don't think even I have a "right" to?)

Also happy to clarify that if you show me a scallop that communicate on a human level I will offer the same rights to scallops regardless of how much DNA they have in common. Hardly a contradiction given I made the same point about machineintelligence with out DNA.

No I absolutely do get it. You think humans are somehow special. That the mere possession of DNA elevates them above all other beasts on the planet, and therefore excuses them for whatever they might do. So you treat the worst of humans better than the best of animals. Again, an interesting world view and one I do not share.

Now perhaps you could kindly explain what it is that makes your "innate rights" any different from human rights?

First, I don't believe in "rights" at all. Not in the way that you think of them. They are not something "given". Your comment 3 posts up about how once you "GIVE" rights to scallops is purely hilarious to me. Not only do you purely elevate the status of humans but apparently you elevate yourself even higher as if you had a magic wand that grants status. I use the word rights because it is as close to what I consider correct without being correct. I believe we have the same basic "rights" of all animals:

To hold and defend territory, food that we provide ourselves or amongst our family pack, to choose a mate, and to defend our territory, food, and mate with everything we've got including by killing those who enter into our territory and threaten our lives or livelihood.

Then of course as I have said, I believe in individual rights. Which are of course MY rights, and my rights extend purely to MY possessions, MY person, MY mate, strictly in the sense that I have the right to defend them.


Let's take your example of shoes. You believe that your basic level of comfort apparently involves being able to have shoes. So what if all the shoe workers in all the land, decide they don't want to do it anymore and all go on strike. Now what? Does your "right" to own shoes, supercede their right to not be forced to make shoes? Are you going to force them to make shoes?

How precisely do you balance your invented and imaginary rights with "everyone" else's?

Your shoes, your clothes, your technology - all the product of violations of human rights. And you flat out DO NOT care. You believe you have the right to a standard of life, INDIVIDUALLY, and your rights supercede the rights of all others in your mind.

Lets try a different way: tell me which human rights are not included in your innate rights.

All of them. Rights are an invented concept, that are thought up by people who have way too much time on their hands. The vast majority of the planet and I mean the vast majority, probably 95 %, while they pay lip service to the idea of human rights do not, and have never, practiced them.

Asking me which human rights are not included in my world view is like asking me which one isn't real, Santa Claus, Tinkerbell or the tooth fairy.

If your Human Rights were real, then by default, most people would practice them without thinking about them. They don't. What they practice is the same "innate rights" that are exhibited by dogs, bears, and other animals, which is in fact, what we are.

No animal pack goes around trying to make things better for the neighboring pack. And human history has shown, that with our lauded sentience, neither do we. The countries that receive our "aid" are the countries that have something we want. The countries like China, that violate every "human right" under the planet, are propped up and the abuses ignored because they make ipods like nobodies business.

Your human rights ideals that indoctrinate people to expectations of "comfort and standards" produce people who don't want hard work, who whine about factory shifts and bad pay, and not getting home in time to watch the telly. A country that natters so much about rights, and standards and freedoms, produces in the end citizens who refuse to work the 12 hour factory shifts, and go on strike because it's unfair and not right, and of course then the plant packs up and moves to Indonesia or China, and then the people whine that there's no jobs left and the government needs to provide.

So in practice, the lofty concept of human rights only extend to our specific pack, not of course to all the other billions of humans on the planet who must be exploited so that their own basic level of comfort can be achieved.


So no. There's no such thing as human rights. This is just our time on top of the heap, but with the steady erosion of an able work force, as both our countries become fatter and more inept, eventually the pendulum is going to swing against us, and all those countries whose citizens who've been working their asses off for the last decade while we marinate in our privileges are going to stomp all over us.

And will we have the right to complain? Whine about rights? No. Because we did it to ourselves.



So once again, let me ask you, if you believe so much in human rights, why do you violate other people's every day?

[TomTomKent]

So if you don't mind me putting my tongue in cheek and applying the same level of absurdity to views counter to my own, I believe there is a hypocracy to stating it is arrogant to believe "human rights" make, or treat humans differently.


Is the alternative to believe all life has the same rights as us? Does this mean they should be afforded the same treatment? To an extent perhaps, you may believe if I were to encroach on the territory of a wild animal it has the right to defend against the percieved threat.

The absurdity is how we react. I do not believe for a second anybody in these forums would allow their friends or loved oned to be mawled by tigers or eaten by sharks defending their young on the principle that it is the inate right of the animal. Or perhaps you respect the right of the animal, but feel your right to protect your own young or your own friends, or even a stranger supercedes and it is your duty shoot the animal.

On the one hand you could apply the same right of the animal to defend your young from a threat. But on the other hand you would, quite rightfully expect those around you to react differently. Were an intruder to stray into your home, and force your hand to defending yourself you would, rightly, find it hard to concede the intruders family were in their rights, or fulfilling a duty to join the fray and kill you first. You would not offer them same entitlement in this situation as you would expect when dealing with an animal. For right or wrong there is a difference. We do treat humans differently from animals, andwe do treat our own differently from others.

Were the shoe on the other foot, were it your misguided friend, sibling, child, whatever, breaking into somebodies home. I know that will probably never happen, I know the people who come here are unlikely to be criminals and doubt they allow their family to be either, but purely hypothetically... one of your loved ones is a housebreaker, or syphons fuel from my farm, or starts a fight. They put me in danger. You would accept my right to killthem with out question of course? You agree it was their own fault? Or at the very least concede the fault is not mine?

But what if there were means to hand for me to defend myself with out lethal force? If I could have set the dogs on them, grabbed the taser not the shotgun. You would still accept my actions?

But key here, would you expect the right to defend your kid from my lethal defence?

[Ally]

I will answer your post in detail, when you answer mine. I have asked you repeatedly, how do you justify your "belief" in human rights, when your very existence violates the rights of millions on a daily basis.

This is not a tongue in the cheek or rhetorical question.

The existence that you choose to lead violates the human rights of millions so that you may have the "rights" and "comforts" you feel entitled to. How do you square your choices with your ideals?

I really want to know.