Reply #10: I didn't say everything is a priviledge [View All]

[Ravenseye]

I just said 'existing' was. It's not a 'right' because what happens if two people's 'rights' to exist contradict? It's not a consistent system, therefore it's invalid.

Or not.

I just think when people say "X has a right to exist." it is usually very defensive, becuase some else is claiming X doesn't have a right to exist, because X exists by impeding Y's right to exist. Therefore there are two competeing claims and who determines which right to exist supercedes the other?

Or you could take it the opposite way and agree that X does have a right to exist, and also that Y has a right to exist, even if the two are incompatible. Then there is no solution which makes the claims equally invalid.

Or you neuter what the phrase 'right to exist' means to the point where it becomes meaningless, and neither a right, nor necessarily gauged by existance.

So, if everything is a priviledge, what's the point to living?

42.