RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Arpig -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 10:28:41 PM)

quote:

A society where the only rights belong to individuals, is called an anarchy. If that's what you're advocating, then good luck.
Actually Pam, that is exactly what she is advocating. Openly so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

quote:

That way....as I think I said many pages ago leads to anarchy and chaos....plain and simple.
yes. that is the ultimate goal. actual real untrameled freedom.

hannah lynn




gungadin09 -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 10:49:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

A society where the only rights belong to individuals, is called an anarchy. If that's what you're advocating, then good luck.
Actually Pam, that is exactly what she is advocating. Openly so.


That's what i get for not reading the whole thread. Well, my computer was down, that's my excuse... this time.

pam

P.S.- Didn't we just do a thread on this? If i remember correctly, it was the end of the world and i was on LadyPact's team. She was showing us all how to hunt, and we were fighting NocturnalStalker.



bethanyrose -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 10:54:07 PM)

(replying to OP about how women should have the right to do crack....)

First of all, why just women? Can't men do crack? That's rude. lol

Secondly, even IF I would agree with this (which I don't just to make clear) crack is a very poor example to use. People on crack have been known to go into rages and harm others. To get in such a stupor that their decisions are not the best, their reaction time slower and their thinking ability fogged. All things a stew for getting others injured. Therefore, she (or he) would not be affecting only their own body but that of others.

You really should think things through before you post them.



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 11:07:33 PM)

quote:

i'd be suprised if you really believed that no one has the right to dictate to me in any way
then be surprised. you are confusing the power to dictate to you with the right to dictate to you.

as to your list of rights you supposedly don't have...
quote:


i have the right to have sex. i do not have the right to force someone to have sex with me.
i have the right to own a gun. i do not have the right to fire a gun at someone, except in certain very specific circumstances.

you are correct, as these two involve imposing your wants/needs/desires on another individual, something nobody and nothing has the right to do.
quote:

i do not have the right to bring a bomb onto a plane.
of course you do. you don't however have the right to set it off (see above for the reason)
for all the rest, the answer is the same: of course you do.

quote:

i suspect if you don't see crack addiction as being an imposition on society that it's because you're never known a crack addict. i suspect that if you had, you would see the risk more clearly.
you are wrong. i can't be 100% sure, but i am willing to bet i have known more crack addicts more intimately than you have. i lived amongst them for several years. i understand addiction (cocaine) perfectly well, from personal experience. however unpleasant addiction is, it has no bearing on your right to live that life if you so choose.
quote:

But even if you *didn't*, i'm at a loss to understand why you're so adamant that you have a right to do something you have been expressly forbidden to do by law.
because the law is morally void and thus has no validity.
quote:

According to *whom* do you have this right? According to yourself?
we all have these rights simply by virtue of existing. and yes according to myself, who's view would i be advocating but my own.
quote:

Do you see yourself as having the right to disobey any law you don't like?
of course. laws are by definition illegitimate, because the entity that enacts them has no rights. it is not an individual.
quote:

Do all laws violate your idea of the "rights of an individual"?
yes, anything that restricts my freedom violates my rights.
quote:

Why do you think laws are made in the first place (because i can assure you that *any* law consists of society telling individuals what to do.)
to control you and deny you your natural freedom. laws do not prevent anything, they only punish. thus they are coercion.
quote:

A society where the only rights belong to individuals, is called an anarchy.
yes, exactly. as arpig said, that is exactly what i am advocating. a life of actual real freedom for all.
quote:

If that's what you're advocating, then good luck.
thank you, i'm going to need all the luck i can get.

hannah lynn



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 11:20:20 PM)

quote:

You really should think things through before you post them.

bethanyrose, we have been thinking it over for 23 pages.
rather than try to sum up, i'll refer you to arpig's post that states the premise quite clearly
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3640107
the op was deliberately provocative but there are a few of us who see the inescapable logic of it. and then there is me, who would take the principle within the basic premise to its inevitable conclusion. i am advocating complete personal freedom, unrestricted by any social construct. complete anarchy.

all you have said about crack is correct, however none of it is relevant. none of it matters.none of it overrides the right of the individual to do whatever they want with and to themselves.

hannah lynn



bethanyrose -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 11:29:30 PM)

quote:

all you have said about crack is correct, however none of it is relevant. none of it matters.none of it overrides the right of the individual to do whatever they want with and to themselves.


Wow, I actually never thought I would meet a heartless person but this thread and your post have proven me wrong. While you admit I could be correct in saying that a person on crack has the potential to harm others you still find it legit to say they have the "right" to do crack. I disagree strongly. My right to do anything that will harm others is NOT acceptable. No one has the "right" to put another person's life in danger. EVER

People want to do crack or any other mind altering drug go out in the woods or on a deserted island and do it. Don't put MY LIFE in danger for YOUR RIGHT to do drug. Sheesh. *rolls eyes at the stupidity and just walks away*



tweakabelle -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 11:37:07 PM)

quote:

slvemike4u
no matter how harshly we draw the line where he pays the price of his own decisions...he is still part of a larger problem.He supports his pusher...who supports his pusher....and on and on. He is a linchpin in a chain of criminality...one that pays no heed at all to the niceties of society,one that cares not how the customer acquired the purchase price nor whether or not this particular customer likes "Family Guy"


OMG! Mike you had me worried! For a moment there I could have sworn you were talking about lawyers.....[:D]

It might be the case that in the assertion of the individual rights and society's rights, this thread is losing sight of a primary value that I hope we all agree on.

That is - human life is precious and society should keep its members alive whenever possible (unless it's the fully informed free choice of that person to cease living). I do not see any conflict between widespread availability of abortions and this value, tho I accept that others might.

To me that means individuals have a right to do as they please with their bodies and an obligation to themselves to keep their bodies in good condition.

Let's not kid ourselves. Being humans, not everyone is going to honour that obligation as best they might. It makes no sense to legislate fallacies that try to prevent the inevitable. Wouldn't it make more sense to tax legally available drugs to the hilt to pay for the repairs society is going to have to provide.

There will always be those whose need/desire for drugs exceeds their capacity to manage the drugs they consume. Society already supplies detox, rehabs and other recovery services for those who can't manage their intake of legal drugs (eg alcohol). It supplies recovery services for others whose risk analysis leaves something to be desired (eg sports injuries, car accident injuries). Legality or culpability is not an issue in these cases. Why single drug users out for stigmatisation?

That seems to me to respect the primacy of human life, to respect everyone's rights and enable society to fulfil its obligations at little or no cost. Who knows it might even help balance certain Budgets .....



gungadin09 -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 11:41:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather
quote:

A society where the only rights belong to individuals, is called an anarchy.


yes, exactly. as arpig said, that is exactly what i am advocating. a life of actual real freedom for all.

quote:

If that's what you're advocating, then good luck.


thank you, i'm going to need all the luck i can get.


i can't tell if you're serious or not. If so then, sincerely, good luck to you. For the record, i like oddballs. i'm one myself.

pam



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 11:59:32 PM)

quote:

Wow, I actually never thought I would meet a heartless person but this thread and your post have proven me wrong.
i am not heartless at all. a person has the right to do crack, but that does not give that person the right to harm another. you have the absolute unfettered right to do whatever you want to and with yourself. but absolutely no right to do a thing to another.
quote:

My right to do anything that will harm others is NOT acceptable. No one has the "right" to put another person's life in danger. EVER
100% correct. however a person's doing crack has absolutely no effect, good, bad or indifferent on you. what the person does while on crack is another issue and here the crackhead has no right to affect others. its really very simple.
quote:

Don't put MY LIFE in danger for YOUR RIGHT to do drug.
your right to live does not overrule mine.
quote:

*rolls eyes at the stupidity and just walks away*

*rolls eyes at your stupidity and just walks away*

hannah lynn



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 12:12:43 AM)

quote:

i can't tell if you're serious or not. If so then, sincerely, good luck to you. For the record, i like oddballs. i'm one myself.
thanks pam. i am 100% serious. and if you like oddballs, then we should get along famously. i'm about as odd as they get, just ask heather.

hannah lynn



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 12:21:55 AM)

quote:

human life is precious
agreed 100%
quote:

society should keep its members alive whenever possible
no, it is none of anybody's business but my own if i live or die.
quote:

and an obligation to themselves to keep their bodies in good condition.
again, no. you are under no obligation of any sort to do anything.
quote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to tax legally available drugs to the hilt to pay for the repairs society is going to have to provide.
no, taxation is blackmail, and is immoral.
quote:

Society already supplies detox, rehabs and other recovery services for those who can't manage their intake of legal drugs (eg alcohol). It supplies recovery services for others whose risk analysis leaves something to be desired (eg sports injuries, car accident injuries). Legality or culpability is not an issue in these cases. Why single drug users out for stigmatisation?
i agree with the final sentence, but the rest i have an issue with. society has no obligation to do anything at all. society is imaginary, it has no rights, no obligations, no legitimate function.
quote:

enable society to fulfil its obligations at little or no cost.
again, society has no obligations to fulfill because society does not actually exist. it is an imaginary construct. its not real.

hannah lynn




tweakabelle -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 12:28:52 AM)

quote:

no. you are under no obligation of any sort to do anything.


Does that mean I am under no obligation to pay any attention to anything you say too? [:D]



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 12:31:00 AM)

quote:

Does that mean I am under no obligation to pay any attention to anything you say too?
absolutely!![:D]

hannah lynn



gungadin09 -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 4:21:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather
...because the law is morally void and thus has no validity...laws are by definition illegitimate, because the entity that enacts them has no rights. it is not an individual...to control you and deny you your natural freedom. laws do not prevent anything, they only punish. thus they are coercion.


i disagree. Laws do prevent crime, if not absolutely. (Even if we define crime as only those acts that force one person's will onto another.) For example, i see no reason to bring a bomb onto a plane other than to blow it up. And that would be one person causing harm to another. If there were no laws, and we just had to wait until after the crime happened to do anything about it, then a lot of people would get hurt who might have been saved if there was a law.

They have those x-ray machines at airports because people try to pull stunts like that. i gotta think that more people would get hurt if they weren't there. And those metal detectors at the entrance to the fair- i know that they put those up around here because people were getting stabbed, and that that stopped because of the metal detectors. Laws do prevent people from doing harm to others.

i guess i'm okay with giving up a certain amount of my "natural freedom" if it keeps me safe. i can live with that. i dunno, call me a coward, i guess. Plus, i mostly think the law does a good job of balancing what one individual wants to do with his body or life, against what the rest of the individuals want to do with theirs.

This cumbersome social contract that you don't believe is legitimate. i would imagine that life, in the beginning, was experienced on a purely individual level and was brutally short and absolutely free. i would also imagine that the fact that it *sucked* was what gave rise to the social contract in the first place. And you're right, it's not "natural". It's an artificial construct, like money, and like money it has no more power or value than what we perceive it to have. And i would guess that most people are perfectly fine with being "coerced" and controlled by laws, when, on balance, they perceive their lives are better off for it.

Incidently, have you thought this thing through? In your ideal world what happens to the person who decides to break the code of freedom and harm someone else against their will? If there is no law, does that mean there is no punishment? And who decides what constitutes "harm"? If there is a food shortage and i eat the last potato, and you die of starvation, can i really say that i didn't "harm" you? What about if i do a sloppy job constructing a car, and it crashes and kills somebody? Are you more or less free when you live a life of absolute freedom that's 1/8 as long as it would have been if that freedom had been restricted? Do you count "freedom" in degrees, or as a sum over time? Etc.

i will say this much: that if the actions of individuals did not have an effect on others, i would be pretty happy to let everyone do whatever they pleased.

pam



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 6:51:11 AM)

quote:

i disagree. Laws do prevent crime,
no, laws only punish after the fact. until you break them, they have no effect. they are by definition reactive things. no law prevents anything, it prohibits things, but does not prevent them. this is not quibbling or hair splitting, it is an important concept when understanding the power of society/state.

quote:

If there were no laws, and we just had to wait until after the crime happened to do anything about it, then a lot of people would get hurt who might have been saved if there was a law.
but waiting until after the crime is what you already have to do. in your example of the bomb on the plane, the explosion was not prevented by the law prohibiting blowing up the plane. it was prevented by the would-be bomber breaking the law prohibiting bringing a bomb onto a plane.
quote:

Plus, i mostly think the law does a good job of balancing what one individual wants to do with his body or life, against what the rest of the individuals want to do with theirs.
there is no balancing required. we are, each of us, free to do whatever we want with ourselves.
quote:

In your ideal world what happens to the person who decides to break the code of freedom and harm someone else against their will?
the person harmed would have to deal with that, in whatever manner they deemed appropriate.
quote:

If there is no law, does that mean there is no punishment?
of course. there is no entity with the right to punish.
quote:

If there is a food shortage and i eat the last potato, and you die of starvation, can i really say that i didn't "harm" you?
yes i can. your action did not directly affect me in any way. the fact that there was no food left after you ate is not your problem, it is mine.
quote:

What about if i do a sloppy job constructing a car, and it crashes and kills somebody?
they die.
quote:

Are you more or less free when you live a life of absolute freedom that's 1/8 as long as it would have been if that freedom had been restricted?
more free, of course.
quote:

Do you count "freedom" in degrees, or as a sum over time?
its an absolute. being truly free for 1 minute, makes you more free than 100 years of restricted freedom. restricted freedom is not freedom at all.

hannah lynn



thishereboi -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 9:47:05 AM)

quote:

no law prevents anything,


It may not stop you from doing anything but there are a lot of people out there who won't do something because it is against the law and they don't want to go to jail.



BitaTruble -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 10:10:01 AM)

fr

The bottom line is if someone doesn't like the laws, they have the right to try to get them changed. Even if you don't have the right to smoke crack, you certainly have the option.




slvemike4u -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 10:12:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

fr

The bottom line is if someone doesn't like the laws, they have the right to try to get them changed. Even if you don't have the right to smoke crack, you certainly have the option.


This.....it's simplicity makes it hard to dispute.It's logic and reasoning invites derision should you choose to do so [:)]



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 4:53:46 PM)

quote:

I'll take what you find in there, I like to guess the buzz.
Well let's see what I found Ma'am....
there's these green ones that will make you larger....
a few red ones that will make you small...
and these yellow ones my mother gave me, but they won't do anything at all.

Heather
(With apologies to whoever originally wrote that song)



HannahLynHeather -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/20/2011 4:57:51 PM)

quote:

It may not stop you from doing anything but there are a lot of people out there who won't do something because it is against the law and they don't want to go to jail.
another example that the state/society is based on coercion. "do as you're told or you will be punished!" it is a punitive entity who's primary purpose is to control you.

hannah lynn



Page: <<   < prev  20 21 22 [23] 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625