Siro goes to to pre-military training

[David Floyd]

Sprayber, I read that and still find myself asking what the point is.

[Sprayber]

They went out through the revolving doors that made a faintly derisive whistling sound when you pushed them. It was two blocks to the parking lot. At the drugstore on the corner she said, "Wait here for me. I forgot something. I won't be a minute." She was more than a minute. Walter Mitty lighted a cigarette. It began to rain, rain with sleet in it. He stood up against the wall of the drugstore, smoking . . . He put his shoulders back and his heels together. "To hell with the handkerchief," said Walter Mitty scornfully. He took one last drag on his cigarette and snapped it away. Then, with that faint, fleeting smile playing about his lips, he faced the firing squad; erect and motionless, proud and disdainful, Walter Mitty the Undefeated, inscrutable to the last.

GP was right

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Who the ****'s Walter Mitty, and what does he have to do with anything?

James Thurber short story. Read it and you will understand the relation to your imaginary DI fights.

[David Floyd]

Yeah...you really stood up to them on the registration for the draft...

I think I already explained that one - it was necessary for my education, and it's something that from the get-go I've never planned to honor, you can ask anyone in my family I'd be more than happy to provide you with email addresses

[Sprayber]

Walter Mitty is a dreamer. In his mind he is noble, heroic, brave and so many other things. In real life, is very much ordinary.

[David Floyd]

Walter Mitty is a dreamer. In his mind he is noble, heroic, brave and so many other things. In real life, is very much ordinary.

I don't care if you believe me or not. But I'd be more than happy to kick a DIs ass, leave the country, shoot people violating my rights, or whatever it took to secure my freedom. I find it curious that you people oppose that sentiment.

[Ramo]

Would you agree you own yourself?

Not independent of a government. Property rights are only relevant in a legal sense.

[David Floyd]

Not independent of a government. Property rights are only relevant in a legal sense.

Well, if you don't accept the basic premise of ownership of oneself, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree

[Ramo]

Well, if you don't accept the basic premise of ownership of oneself, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree

Well, if you don't accept the basic premise of ownership of oneself, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree

There's a distinction between "what is" and "what should be."

With an authoritarian gov't, you don't own yourself, the state does, regardless of how morally wrong you consider the situation to be.

When you start bringing "what should be" into the argument, you introduce morality.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I think I already explained that one - it was necessary for my education, and it's something that from the get-go I've never planned to honor, you can ask anyone in my family I'd be more than happy to provide you with email addresses

Yeah, right dude. I bet a trip to Leavenworth would interfere with your education, too. You are such a noble guy! Ha!

Oh and why would I want your family e-mail addresses? Is that to prove that you can scare your little sister? I was going to give you that gratis, David Mitty!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I don't care if you believe me or not. But I'd be more than happy to kick a DIs ass, leave the country, shoot people violating my rights, or whatever it took to secure my freedom. I find it curious that you people oppose that sentiment.

I guess we just aren't that selfish.

[Berzerker]

notyoueither -

Berzerker: I will grant you this. You could probably argue the paint off a wall, or at least you might try.

Just responding to the arguments made by others. Maybe you shouldn't insult people if you don't want to have to defend comments.

However, leaping to ridiculous conclusions from other people's words to make your own argument is more like making straw men. I choose not to engage in debate based on straw men.

When I accuse someone of introducing strawmen, I show the strawman. Where's your proof?

I have never said that rights do not exist.

I never said you did. Is that your proof?

I have tried to indicate that rights spring from agreements between people as to what are good and just and ethical ways to live. That is all.

No you didn't, you claimed rights were societal constructs without any mention of morality, justice or ethics. You also claimed natural rights were idiotic and launched false insults at those who believe in them. Now you accept that rights are or should be based on what is just and ethical. That's what natural rights are - moral, just or ethical claims to act. But you still think these rights require permission from others, that is where we disagree. If you have a moral imperative to act, such as in self defense, then you don't need permission from the people trying to murder you.

To cut it all short. I believe that conscription does not violate the fundamental right to life that most societies recognize. The state is not killing it's own soldiers. The state is compelling its citizens to defend it and themselves.

To cut it all short and without the spin - you believe one person or group has the moral authority to force others to kill and/or be killed for the security of the former. The "state" is not some magical entity, it's just a group of people.

It is an obligation of citizenship in any society from time to time due to circumstances.

Telling me it's an obligation without providing a contract signed by the draftees doesn't prove your argument. Anyone can claim you have an obligation to hand over your property, that doesn't mean you are obliged to comply.

Is it possible for you to imagine a situation where more people would die due to a state being overrun by its enemies than would have been killed as combatants on both sides if the state survived?

Yup, and? Are you suggesting we can force the innocent to die to save ourselves if we outnumber our victims?

Where do the rights to life for the dead figure into your equation?

I never said you don't have the right to defend yourself from attack, only that you don't have the right to force others to die defending you. If you have the right to force others to die for your security, how are you any different than the people attacking you?

You may answer or not, your choice. It is unlikely I will respond. I have enough things to argue endlessly. I am Canadian

Won't be the first time someone entered a thread to launch insults only to run away when refuted.

loinburger -

Berserker:

Where were you when Urban Ranger started his Natural Rights thread? I'd have expected to see you post on it.

I would have responded had I been around.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No I didn't. All I did was sign up for something I have no intention of ever honoring, because if I didn't, I would have been prevented from seeking an education or receiving need or academic based financial aid.
I have no problem lying or misrepresenting myself to an immoral government.

The U.S. government is a reflection of the people who keep electing official's to office.
Now, re-read your post.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Can you elaborate?

Either nature created us or we are part of nature that was itself created. These "natural" rights are called "natural" because they exist by virtue of our existence - a "gift" from whomever or whatever created us within the context of nature.

If the claim to act is tied to morality, how can it be natural?

Because self-ownership is inherently moral and natural. The "creator" did not put you here for me to order about.

AFAIK, my "creators" were my parents.

No, they conceived you. Whomever or whatever created life leading to your parents and you "created" you.

But I don't see your logic. Why should this have to do with anything?

Because the moral authority to act requires either ownership or permission. If we didn't create you, we can't own you.

Because murder (more generally, coercion) is contrary to my moral code.

Why?

Sounds fairly silly to me.

Me too, but that's the kind of silliness people like Sirotnikov walk into when trying to deny that natural rights exist while condemning mass murderers for violating the "non-existent" rights of their victims.

I would condemn this government for coercing an individual.

Why? Do people have the "right" to be free from coercion?

Why should asserting the lack of a natural right to life imply that I wouldn't condemn murderers?

Because you have no basis for condemning murderers unless you believe the victims have some inherent right to live.

David, I consider coercion immoral. I don't need magical natural rights to exist to hold that morality. You don't like it, too bad.

But just claiming it is immoral ignores why it is immoral. Once you try to answer that question you will discover natural rights.

Not independent of a government. Property rights are only relevant in a legal sense.

So if government did not exist, you wouldn't have the moral authority to defend yourself from attack?

There's a distinction between "what is" and "what should be."

With an authoritarian gov't, you don't own yourself, the state does, regardless of how morally wrong you consider the situation to be.

When you start bringing "what should be" into the argument, you introduce morality.

Which is why natural rights are moral or just claims to act, not rights permitted (or denied) by others.

[SlowwHand]

You might as well argue with a post, Berz.