Click it or ticket - Oh my gawd! They really DO care!

[Spidey-Bat]

It's the same logic that goes with the bans on cellphone usage. It distracts you from driving which can (and has) caused an accident.

Driving is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT.

 

[StorminNorman]

Driving is a right not a privledge. We don't have a "right to drive" in the way that we have a right to a car, but we do have the freedom of movement and the right to private property. If you buy a car, you have the right to operate that car. We don't drive simply because the government allows us to. Yes, the majority of roads we use now are government projects, but such infastructure could exist outside the rhelm of government.

Sentinel X is 100% correct here. His position is one based on an understanding of liberty. Good for him. Preach it brother.

 

[SuperFerret]

Nope. Your car can be taken away as can your license. It's a privilege.

 

[StorminNorman]

Nope. Your car can be taken away as can your license. It's a privilege.

Those are both violations of your natural rights. You are correct that the State can do it, just as I can kill you if I want to, but both are immoral acts.

 

[StorminNorman]

And I don't want to kill you. :heart:

 

[SuperFerret]

Morality is relative, and life is privilege too.

 

[StorminNorman]

I disagree. Morality is objective. Man's rights are natural. Infringing upon a man's rights is immoral. Pretty straight forward.

 

[SuperFerret]

To you maybe.

 

[StorminNorman]

Not only me, but to any person who wishes to apply reason to morality.

 

[SuperFerret]

I apply reason to morality. Traditional morality claims that the individual matters, but reason states that they do not.

 

[StorminNorman]

How would you go about defending that position? Reason demonstrates that the individual only matters - that society exists only because it benefits the individual.

 

[SuperFerret]

Science. Looking at nature. The fact that the only real point to life from an impersonal perspective is breeding.

 

[StorminNorman]

But see that view completely ignores the uniqueness of reason. Human beings are the only ones that possess reason, we alone have the ability to understand the nature of the world and adapt to it. Animals react on instinct - we learn. To pretend that we are the same as dogs or rabbits or lizards or trees is, I believe, irrational.

 

[SuperFerret]

Your arrogance makes me continue to disregard you as nothing more than an annoyance, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of how wrong you are on just about everything in that post.

 

[StorminNorman]

That's unfortunate, I was enjoying it. I was very much looking forward to seeing explain how you view human beings as being on the same level as other animals - I haven't seen a quality argument for that position and thought you capable of providing one.

 

[SuperFerret]

Humans are animals. That's all the argument needed. Nothing in existence is unique, nothing is "special", and to close your mind to something because you can't know it for sure is far more irrational than you would have me think.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't close my mind, I simply observe. No other animal has discovered electricity, learned how to forge steel or discovered the molecular makeup of water. Find me an animal who is able to possess a firm enough grasp of physics to craft a structure that allows it to fly in the air and I will reevaluate my understanding of animal reasoning.

Mankind has been able to domesticate animals. We are able to manipulate nature and grow our own food.

"Humans are animals" doesn't cut it.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Driving is a right not a privledge. We don't have a "right to drive" in the way that we have a right to a car, but we do have the freedom of movement and the right to private property. If you buy a car, you have the right to operate that car. We don't drive simply because the government allows us to. Yes, the majority of roads we use now are government projects, but such infastructure could exist outside the rhelm of government.

Sentinel X is 100% correct here. His position is one based on an understanding of liberty. Good for him. Preach it brother.

Only if you have a driver's license which is issued to you by the state after passing a road test. If you break the laws, they can take it away from you.

 

[StorminNorman]

Aristotle was correct when he identified reason as man's primary function. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, man has to think - or die.

 

[StorminNorman]

Only if you have a driver's license which is issued to you by the state after passing a road test. If you break the laws, they can take it away from you.

You can drive in your own yard without a drivers license. You can drive on private roads without a drivers license.

 

[SuperFerret]

Tool-making isn't a uniquely human trait, nor is the ability to manipulate nature or grow our own food. Our methods may be more advanced, but they're not unique and don't exclude other animals from having reason. Also, remember that we only began to develop the advanced techniques we have now once our numbers became sufficient enough for us to rise to the top of the food chain and we began to attempt to remove ourselves from the natural order. We have these advanced techniques because we have time to worry about them, as opposed to worrying about "where's my next meal?" and "who's trying to eat me?"

 

[Spidey-Bat]

You can drive in your own yard without a drivers license. You can drive on private roads without a drivers license.

Good for you.

 

[StorminNorman]

Tool making is not the same as reasoning. You can understand that a rock breaks a coconut without understand the phyics behind breaking that coconut. Animals can understand the former, humans can understand the latter.

 

[SuperFerret]

Aristotle was correct when he identified reason as man's primary function. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, man has to think - or die.

He was, because if it weren't for our intellect, we wouldn't have survived this long. We aren't particularly large, strong, or fast, nor do we have claws and fangs and poison barbs. Humanity had to evolve larger brains to survive, which then caused reproductive problems that led to the formation of stronger social groups and so forth.

But we're not talking about being intelligent, or reasoning being at the same level as Homo sapiens, we're talking about two things: One, that humanity is subject to the same threats that all species are and that the deaths of a few are meaningless so long as the species survives, and two, that non-human animals are very likely to have reasoning capabilities as they arose in our species.

Tool making is not the same as reasoning. You can understand that a rock breaks a coconut without understand the phyics behind breaking that coconut. Animals can understand the former, humans can understand the latter.

How many humans truly understand the physics there? And who's to say that understanding that the rock breaks to coconut won't lead to more abstract understandings in other species as it has in ours? We had to start somewhere, and we're not the chosen ones as some would like to believe. Homo sapiens might be in the lead, but there's nothing stating that we're the only ones running the race.

 

[StorminNorman]

Good for you.

That's the most obvious example. Personally I find it immoral to take money from a man to pay for roads (since roads are paid for via taxes) and then aribtrarily restrict a man from using them.

Now CAN a State do that? Absolutely. Again, I CAN kill you if I want to.

Is either right? No.

Just because a State acts in a certain way does not mean it should act in a certain way.