- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 10,621
- Reaction score
- 2,104
- Location
- In your dreams...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, those are some of the basic tenets of 'Realism' in the context of international politics.
I don't think that rights between animals have any meaning. "Animal rights" only exist within human societies, they don't mean squat on the savannah.
I'm not talking about "animal rights" lol. Maybe your joking? Take Jerry's examples posted above.
for example: A territorial animal gains a 'right' to a particular territory or an animal in conflict for a mate wins the 'right' to the prize.
I think those are good examples because they show how the successful use of force established authority to eat from a certain land or breed with a given mate.
Authority is established through the aggressive use of force.
And, as sociologists would claim, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Human rights violation as defined by the UN charter...
To determine meaning of such rights among animals, I would again reflect on the alpha male of a wolf pack: the purpose of his right, his authority, to claim the first quarter of any kill is to sustain him as the primary warrior and protector of the pack. For another wolf to deny the alpha the first quarter is to undermine the safety of the entire pack, and so all of the wolves agree to the alpha's right and mutually punish violators.
We might say that this right is universal, because any wolf who meets the criteria will be afforded that right. However, modern notions of what constitutes "universal" tend to insist that a right must have no criteria at all, which in turn dissolves the right altogether, so such an argument is problematic.
I'm not talking about "animal rights" lol. Maybe your joking? Take Jerry's examples posted above.
for example: A territorial animal gains a 'right' to a particular territory or an animal in conflict for a mate wins the 'right' to the prize.
Except alpha males only remain alpha males so long as they are the strongest in the pack.
Alpha males tend to change regularly because stronger, more fit males come along and challenge them and win.
There is no "right" to be alpha male, the loser of a dominance battle can't say "hey, I have a right to that position even if I lose!"
the victor simply has specific abilities while they hold the position and very few abilities when and if they lose the position.
How is that a right to begin with? It's like someone who starts a company and is, for all intents and purposes, the "alpha male", asserting that they have a right to control the company. That's all well and good until the board of directors tosses them out on their ass. People tend to confuse "right" and "ability" as if they are the same thing. They are not.
I agree, and reiterate in my own words:I think you're misinterpreting here. The animal acquires the right through its actions. Marking the territory is the ability, fighting off competitors is the ability. These abilities gain the right.
Also, with the example of the alpha male, he is given a 'right' to the choicest part of the kill, a right he no longer has when he loses the ability to be the alpha male.
Yes.I say healthcare, food, water, and "other." As a society everyone has the right to healthcare, to food, to water....
Which is absolutely false.And, as sociologists would claim, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
I wasn't invited to be on that Charter, when the boat sailed I still had my integrity. I'd no desire to be on the same boat as China, Somalia, and Libya as they sit on the UN Human Rights Commission.
I guess I'll just have to use my own common sense to decide what constitutes a violation of human rights.
Stealing guns is one of them.
Yes.
What you do NOT have a right to is to have these things provided to you by somene else -- THAT is a pivilege.
Which is absolutely false.
All powers posessed by the state are derived from a right posessed by the people of that state. This includes the legitimate use of force.
Somebody once wrote that the entire U.S. Constitution was written to secure the unalienable rights of American citizens. And an unalienable right is that which requires no contribution from another person other than his/her non interference.
So, IMO, you are correct that there is no right written into the American ideal that somebody else would be required to provide what somebody else wants or even needs.
Other: I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that is all.
And yet, both were FAR harder to get than they are today. So much for that.Our Fore Fathers didn't address the right to food and water, because in their day, it had not yet become so completely owned. Hunting areas and game were plentiful. Water was in great supply compared to the population of the time.
If 'X' is water. And all of it is owned by someone else. They had better not be stingy. Better to be alive.And yet, both were FAR harder to get than they are today. So much for that.
The main point here is that having a right to x does not equate to having the right to have x provided to you by others.
You have EVERY right to posess as much water as you want -- but it is up to you to provide the means to obtain that water, and no one else.If 'X' is water. And all of it is owned by someone else. They had better not be stingy. Better to be alive.
I'm not sure how you think you have a right to someone else's property.
Thank you for adding nothing of value to the discussion -- glad to see you continue to go with what you know.Just do it the good old American way, declare them a threat to our security and occupy their ass.