"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
>>
>> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much
>> further.
>>
>> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
>> > double standards that are involved.)
>>
>> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought
>> to
>> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.
>
> I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
> thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
> but still allow us to do them. It's called justification.

Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization. It means taking
concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
mitigating the risk to himself and others. The driver who exercises all due
caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be found
culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill someone.
He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of dangerous
driving and/or manslughter.

> Such
> justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.

Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of this,
you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.

>> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
>> > right.
>>
>> Yes, and no.