"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.
>
> Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
> way to make the action appear less harsh.

I'm not talking about mitigating "appearances", I specifically said
migitation of risks.

> Killing is killing.

Not really, except in the semantic sense, a=a.

> Killing
> somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
> your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
> human.

And....?
> We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
> talk about "mitigating" circumstances.

You appear to be attempting to deliberately misconstrue my words, is that
not a fair statement?

> Killing is killing.

No

>> 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 workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
> unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
> dangers involved.

According to whom?

> Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.
>
>> 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.
>
> If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.

Not necessary, just mitigate the risks.

>> > 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.
>
> Redeem? Okay.
>
> The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
> the laws associated with killing animals.

There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such law is
even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal one,
with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they live in
the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an outlandish
moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to follow
it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to validate
their alleged moral system.

> Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

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