Or the non-killers became killers in order to prevent being killed by
the killers, thus forever preventing all future killing and nobody was
killed ever again.
On 7/20/2020 9:20 PM, Robert wrote:
One night a year? I think there are movies about that.
On 7/20/20 6:18 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
What would be the reasonable compromise between one caveman's right
to kill and other's not to be killed?
Perhaps "kill whoever you want on Sunday, otherwise no killing"
On 7/20/2020 7:29 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
Since this doesn't really reply to anyone's specific points, I
figured I'd just post this separately in the thread.
I've recently realized that pretty much all of the conflicts we see
are where two sides 'rights' come in conflict with each other.
Back before there were rules, I'm sure there was one group that
thought killing other humans was just fine and it was their right.
Another group just wanted to live their lives without being worried
about being killed by other humans, and it was their right to do
so. When those groups came in conflict their 'rights' didn't match
so a rule had to be made - in this case, 'the right to live is more
important than the right to kill others'. So we now have laws
against murdering others.
What I think people miss is that 'rights' are really nothing but a
construction of societal norms and laws built up over years. You
have the right to not be killed (life). But it could have just as
easily been "you have a right to kill anything you want, including
other humans". Of course, I have a feeling that a society with
that as a right might not have a long lifecycle...
As time has progressed, more and more things have moved into the
realm of 'rights'. Right to free speech, right to peacefully
assemble, and so on.
In our current situation, there seem to be several 'rights' being
fought over right now. Whether my desire to not wear a mask is
more important than the desire of society to reduce the transmission
of a virus. Whether the color of your skin should determine if you
are more or less likely to be shot or abused by a police officer in
some areas. And on and on and on.
If you look at the civil rights movement, a lot of the protests
(peaceful or violent) came about where 'rights' were in conflict.
For example, the rights of black people to be non-segregated vs the
rights of the white people to not want black people to share their
facilities/businesses. At some point, there is going to be
conflict and disagreement. In an ideal society, one would hope
that you could come to an agreement that both sides would at least
be equally unhappy about without resorting to protests and civil
disobedience. But when you're the party who's perceived rights are
being trampled on, it's kinda hard to get the people who are doing
the trampling to listen, since you'd end up trampling on their
rights if things changed. In this circumstance, often some sort of
protest or refusal to go along with the societal norms is
unfortunately needed to bring the topic up to the light. Thus you
saw the lunch counter sit-ins and the freedom riders and similar.
The ignition for a lot of the current events seems to be the George
Floyd death. This is obviously a conflict between the perceived
rights the police officers believed they had, and the right of a
black man to not be killed at the hands of those officers. And
obviously, this has been bubbling under the surface for some time.
There are a lot of these types of conflicts going on right now...
one doesn't have to look very far to find some.
I think to bring this back to another point of this discussion made
by others, it seems like a lot of this country has lost the ability
to stop and listen to both sides to understand what 'right' it is
that the other side thinks is more important than your right you're
not happy with being curtailed. And to come to some sort of
reasonable agreement.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
