Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 4
th, 2024 at 5:55pm:
The crocodile has a right to eat, if someone is foolish enough to go into the crocodile’s hunting area then they forfeit their right to life, the life is extinguished
Ok, the example was meant to show that "rights" don't exist in the animal kingdom, only the struggle to survive exists.
So why do "rights" exist in the human 'kingdom' which evolved from the animal kingdom?
My contention is "rights" are inventions of the human cerebral cortex, seat of
self awareness, and awareness of (possible) behaviours of others, along with the
ability to reason, capacities which aren't available in the animal kingdom, out of which we evolved.
Hence humans are 'aware' of and attracted to concepts such as
morality, justice and fairness, since such concepts are
advantageous to the individual in a society of other self-interested individuals whose personal desires and interests may not necessarily coincide.
Concepts of morality etc which humans have attempted to codify via "rights" which will support the desire for life and liberty and (...insert what other words you would like to mention as "rights") are the important factor here.
So we need to define
morality, justice and fairness. eg the UN UDHR defines a "right" to above poverty employment with reasonable conditions re personal safety etc. (article 23).
But mainstream neoliberal economics (associated with obsolete, neoclassical 'scarcity' dogma, aka "the dismal science" for good reason...) requires a pool of unemployed workers, to manage inflation in the economy (aka the
NAIRU).
Not moral, just or fair....
So if economic injustice is a direct cause of home invasion or other crime, what is the balance of guilt between the home invader and the confortable householder. And the level of force which is employed in "self-defence"?
(eg, the policeman who tazered the old demented woman brandishing a knife: he didn't expect her to fall over and crack her head; where does the blame for her death lie? The police commisioner sacked him because...he should have patiently worked out some other course of action, and hence a jury convicted him of manslaughter.)
Quote:but the Right to Life still exists likewise if someone unlawfully attacks me with the intention of taking my life then my rights override his and he dies.
And hopefully a jury agrees with you....
Quote:I suggest that you read the Second Amendment and apply basic English meanings to the words and use reason not emotion in deciding their meaning.
The 2nd amendment is an anachronistic piece of garbage; military-grade weapons should be confined to the military.
Quote:I reiterate, the Second Amendment neither confers nor establishes any rights, therefore the ‘ . . right of the people to keep and bear arms. . . ‘’ , which is only associated with it shall in no way be affected
So the 2nd permits you to use military grade weapons for 'self-defence'. See the problem?
Forum
Pages: 
