Guns anyone?

[xSilverPhinx]

I come from a country that, with a few exceptions, does not allow personal firearms, certainly nothing even remotely like in the USA and never for "personal protection".  The personal protection shibboleth is really an oxymoron, statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.

and people who own knives or bees are far more likly to be cut or stung than people who don't own them. In fact i got my first hive last year and was stung more in that year than i have the previous 40 years combined. However since i learned how to work with bees i do not even need a bee suit. the same is true for owning knives.. or hammers nails or any other tool. you are far more likely to be injured by something you are in close proximity to/own than something you do not own/have not been exposed to.

To answer your question, there is nothing about the Covid-19 situations with its isolation requirements and all, that has done the slightest bit to change my attitude to owning a fire arm.  What would change my opinion?  If I were to move out of the city I might invest in a long arm or two to shoot rabbits or deer for the table, but I just don't feel the need to have a firearm for security reasons.  We gain far more personal protection by acting collectively for the mutual good.  Stay the f***k at home!

Now if you considered my OP properly i changed your social structure and dynamic completely. This wasn't just about the virus. I said with the virus and a power grid shut down... which stops all perishable food stores and deliveries, city water supplies internet phones the whole lot.  Then i introduced my baseball bat, with the collapsed society, who would naturally have very limited access to police or medical. If I am 6'8" tall 275 lbs of angry hungry man with again a ball bat with no food. and you have a store of food, but no way to call for help. Would you want a way to defend yourself that did not need you to be athletic or to be skilled in any martial art form, or would you just hand over your supplies? or do i beat you to death or near death and take all you have?

Well, back in late 2019 and early 2020 my country experienced severe fires that did in fact destroy pretty much all infrastructure in many areas and people were left without power, communications, fresh water or, in many cases, even a house to live in (and of course, regrettably some lost even their lives, but that's not the point here.)  What did they do in these areas?  Did they start preying on each other, the strongest taking the lion's share of available resources?  No.  People banded together and did what they could to help each other.  They pooled their resources and made the best of what they had.  That is what people do. Disaster tends to bring communities together.  Even in wartime that's what happens - think of the Blitz in London during WWII.  The more the Germans bombed London the more the Londoners came together.  The same happened in Germany when Bomber Harris insisted the RAF bomb civilian areas in Germany.  Look at what happens in many war torn areas around the world, the actions of the warring parties only makes the ordinary people do more to help each other.  It's what people do.  I think your apocalyptic vision, while it make a fun book, and I've read my fair share of those, does not reflect reality.  Of course there will always be outliers, but the overwhelming majority of people try to be decent.

[Old Seer]

Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist. 

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

[billy rubin]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

[Old Seer]

There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

To understand-- reduce this to a simpler form. If there's only two persons on the planet which one gives rights to the other. The only way they can co-exist is if they recognize the existence of the other. If you're the one that determined that the other has rights, how would you determine that, you would need evidence, the evidence would be yourself. OK so, how could you determine that the other has rights if rights didn't already exist.  Where did you get the right to decide the other has or hasn't rights, and that could only be if you already had the right to make the decision.
  Civilized peoples are mentally trained to be subject to a small cadre of persons who they relegate their rights to. This creates a mental block to see things from a basis of nature. They got that authority from you. You entrust them to regulate your rights, and  those rights are observable. Your rights are understood to be inalienable because they are observable as naturally existing. The small cadre cannot remove your rights, they can only regulate the use of rights.

[xSilverPhinx]

Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist. 

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

I would not. Two reasons:

a) Running from a cat triggers their high prey drive and they will run after you;

b) Between the lion and me, the lion is obviously faster.

But I get what you're asking. In order to try and defend myself and survive, I would try and throw things at it instead, I figure that would be my best chance. Of course I will try to survive an attack.

[xSilverPhinx]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

I'm not sure if that question was for me but I'll answer anyway. 

I don't think I would, though to be honest I don't know. I've never been in that situation to find out.

I don't think moral decision-making is a unitary process in the brain/mind. There is a difference between reacting to an attack in order to avoid harm and actively attacking someone else (supposedly innocent) in order to survive. In the second, you have to make a decision, unconsciously or consciously.

[No one]

[billy rubin]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

I'm not sure if that question was for me but I'll answer anyway. 

I don't think I would, though to be honest I don't know. I've never been in that situation to find out.

I don't think moral decision-making is a unitary process in the brain/mind. There is a difference between reacting to an attack in order to avoid harm and actively attacking someone else (supposedly innocent) in order to survive. In the second, you have to make a decision, unconsciously or consciously.

i'm just curious about who has the right to the food, under old seer's system of rights.

the person who naturally had it first, or the person who had the natural wherewithal to take it away?

[No one]

Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

[Sandra Craft]

Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

[Magdalena]

Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

This sounds like something a god would say about us. 

[billy rubin]

we are what we are.

we behave exactly as other organisms do, especially primates. our difference is that we are intelligent enough to make up philosophy, and so we ascribe complicated and fanciful motivations to whatwe do.

turn the sound off and watch.

[Magdalena]

we are what we are.

we behave exactly as other organisms do, especially primates. our difference is that we are intelligent enough to make up philosophy, and so we ascribe complicated and fanciful motivations to whatwe do.

turn the sound off and watch.

Yes.
I see it.

[Old Seer]

Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

What you're saying here is, Humans aren't human. No intent to be negative, but in the world of the Seers that's how we would see your statement. 

[Old Seer]

Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist. 

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

I would not. Two reasons:

a) Running from a cat triggers their high prey drive and they will run after you;

b) Between the lion and me, the lion is obviously faster.

But I get what you're asking. In order to try and defend myself and survive, I would try and throw things at it instead, I figure that would be my best chance. Of course I will try to survive an attack.

You prefer to exercise your right to remain  alive. The Lion is also exercising it's right to live. To the Lion, you're a meal. What this is---two beings with the same rights. Without the rights neither can remain alive. Nature established (if that wording be correct) both on an even Steven basis. While you have the same rights there is not equal physical ability. Now what.