You are your body, they are the same thing unless you can stop being in your body this is a moot point.
> If you don't want to live, should you be forced to?
Rights are freedoms in order to have the right to do something you must also have the right to not do it, or it's not a right.
> How do you trade lives for lives?
Well you don't thats the point. If you don't respect some one else's rights then there is no reason for them to respect yours.
> Do you pull the trigger and save innocent victims
The whole good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns is a myth according to FBI statistics.
The point saintPirelli made is that people focus too much on hypotheticals (what if we can stop shooters by shooting them) rather than accepting the right and focusing on the reality(how do we prevent shooters from killing people), your argument demonstrates this.
Thats why a terrorist/psychotic killer/.. can get shot.
And it is not a myth, that there are daily people trying to shoot other people on this world. And some of them get stopped by a bullet.
The problem is, that usually both sides claim to only react, but that is a different story.
When there is someone mass killing "innocents" and the fastest way to stop it, is a bullet, then what would you propose instead?
Yes thats the argument I was making.
>When there is someone mass killing "innocents" and the fastest way to stop it, is a bullet, then what would you propose instead?
In my comment I propose preventative measures rather than reactionary measures. I do this because reactionary measures are a reaction and measured by the thing they are reacting too. Rights are not reactionary they are fundamental and you cant base a fundamental right on a reaction, thats the point.
So again, what do you do? Respect the perpetrator's right to life and let him keep ending other lives? Or respect the victims' right to life and end the perpetrator's?
I personally dislike the idea of whittling away a Constitutional right through piecemeal laws rather than an amendment to the Constitution. It a disingenuous workaround, like a poll-tax/literacy test erodes a specific class' right to vote without actually changing their Constitutional right.
It's just much easier to sneak in legislation like the Hughes Amendment and hope a favorable Supreme Court and political climate allows it to stand.
No, you're not. You're the runtime state of the software that's running in your brain. Your body is just a peripheral, and can very well work against your will. More importantly, your body doesn't think.
I phrased it this way because in the case when someone wants to die, but the society won't let them, it's technically not them that have the right to live but their body (and the body can't voice its opinion).
> Well you don't thats the point.
Real world sometimes doesn't give you that option. Situations happen in which a choice between who lives and who dies needs to be made.
> The point saintPirelli made is that people focus too much on hypotheticals (what if we can stop shooters by shooting them) rather than accepting the right and focusing on the reality(how do we prevent shooters from killing people), your argument demonstrates this.
If you keep avoiding a problem, you'll be unprepared when you're suddenly forced to confront it head-on.
That is not independent of the state of the underlying neural network, it seems no more reasonable to dissociate the two than it does to conflate them.
The point still stands: your mind and your body can be seen as separate things, and from this point of view you're your mind, not your body.
Unless you can stop being in your body this is a moot point.
> If you keep avoiding a problem, you'll be unprepared when you're suddenly forced to confront it head-on.
I argued for preventative measures not reactionary measures.
You keep talking about reactionary things but rights are not reactionary thats the point you are missing.