View Poll Results: Is it appropriate to demand proof or facts on Debate Politics?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. We need the facts to make for fair discussion.

    41 61.19%
  • Yes. Some people make stuff up.

    24 35.82%
  • No. Demanding proof is a cop out or scare tactic.

    4 5.97%
  • No. Proof is for trials in court and irrelavent for debates.

    1 1.49%
  • Yes. Other.

    22 32.84%
  • No. Other.

    4 5.97%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 16 of 60 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 595

Thread: Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

  1. #151
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    your alleged destruction of any argument of mine is even less concrete than the natural rights you spend so much time complaining about

    you are relegated to claiming that the founders really didn't want to recognize a right of free men to be armed because you claim they lied by not including slaves in the Declaration of independence
    They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.

    other than your speculation which makes no sense (why would the founders denigrate their own rights), do you have any evidence that your silly interpretation of the bill of rights is correct
    The Founders did not denigrate their own rights. They created rights for themselves. Your premise fails.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #152
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.

    that is a complete fail. to claim that they intended that the 2A allow all sorts of federal encroachments on men like THEM being armed is without any shred of merit.

    Your claim that they LIED about other men is not proof at any level, that their intent as to the 2A is somehow limited, its a pathetic argument



  3. #153
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.



    The Founders did not denigrate their own rights. They created rights for themselves. Your premise fails.
    I see you added something to your post so I will address it

    so they created "rights for themselves"

    and why would they build in a limitation to those rights?

    see your own claim undercuts your specious argument. Internal contradictions are a way of proving someone else's argument fails



  4. #154
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I see you added something to your post so I will address it

    so they created "rights for themselves"

    and why would they build in a limitation to those rights?

    see your own claim undercuts your specious argument. Internal contradictions are a way of proving someone else's argument fails
    I have spoken directly to this many times when you mentioned it before. There is no internal contradiction and you have not pointed any out other than your invoking the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    You seem to labor under the false belief that there are only two options the Founders had:
    1- complete unlimited freedom with no government restraint or regulation, or
    2- a betrayal of some unspecified "natural right" you want to pretend they believed in

    Reality and history shows they took a third path - a middle road which accepts the limits of reality of man living in a nation with other people and the delicate balance between freedom and the necessities of order and law.

    So they created rights for the nation - at least some of the nation - and gave us what they felt was a strong degree of maximum freedom possible - at least for their own class and people like themselves. They also allowed for government to do its job and exercise its powers. When the responsibility of governing is upon ones head - the hollow maxims of the dilettante fall by the wayside - and they did here.

    Your so called "internal contradictions" are the product of the naive and gullible virgin in the ways of the government and the world. In the real world, they are simply crushed and flushed.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #155
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Proof and Facts

    I have yet to see ANY proof that the founders intended the federal government to have power in an area that the states clearly already had police power.

    can you FIND any document or speech, letter or note, that actually supports your silly argument that the federal government was intended to have concurrent police powers over firearms



  6. #156
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I have yet to see ANY proof that the founders intended the federal government to have power in an area that the states clearly already had police power.
    Powers duplicate and over lap. There is no rule which says if a state does it then the feds may not if they are given that power. As a clear and unarguable example the states build highways and the feds build highways. The ability of one does not cancel out the ability of the other.

    And how many times in how many threads do I have to mention that Article I Section 8 gives you exactly what you have asked for. When you say you have yet to see any proof what you really mean is that you simply will not ALLOW anything to shake your faith and belief.

    If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #157
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Powers duplicate and over lap. There is no rule which says if a state does it then the feds may not if they are given that power. As a clear and unarguable example the states build highways and the feds build highways. The ability of one does not cancel out the ability of the other.

    And how many times in how many threads do I have to mention that Article I Section 8 gives you exactly what you have asked for. When you say you have yet to see any proof what you really mean is that you simply will not ALLOW anything to shake your faith and belief.

    If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
    this oozes straw man arguments. Section 8 says nothing what you claim it does. you whine about the belief in natural rights while you worship words that do not exist in the constitution



  8. #158
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    this oozes straw man arguments. Section 8 says nothing what you claim it does. you whine about the belief in natural rights while you worship words that do not exist in the constitution
    It says exactly what I say it does. Exactly down to every word and comma and period. Which words am I adding to the Constitution? State them and tell us where you got them attributing them to me.

    You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #159
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    It says exactly what I say it does. Exactly down to every word and comma and period. Which words am I adding to the Constitution? State them and tell us where you got them attributing them to me.

    You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
    1) the people who wrote the bill of rights believed so

    that is important to anyone who actually is honest about interpreting the Bill of rights since the founders made it perfectly clear that the BoR was designed to recognize and guarantee rights that were assumed, presumed, believed and held to exist by all of the founders but some of the founders were worried that the lack of mention of these rights in the main body of the constitution could cause dishonest statists-in subsequent periods, to pretend those rights did not exist: how right those worries were

    and the US supreme court in Cruikshank clearly ratified, accepted and affirmed that position.

    you are pretending that parts of Sec 8-which contain NARY a comment about federal gun control-actually should be interpreted to allow such things But YOU HAVE COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, and adjectively failed to find us one iota of evidence from those men that supports your fanciful concoction

    2) thus you have completely failed to prove your claim



  10. #160
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    1) the people who wrote the bill of rights believed so
    No they did not. And I have proved that they did not. Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration issued a self serving pompous pronouncement about all men are created equal and they are given rights by their Creator (God). Yes- the said it and wrote it down and signed it. And the gullible and the naive and the political virgins of the land and the world opened wide and swallowed it hook line and sinker. And then Jefferson and many of the signers went back to their farms and plantations and kept making money off the slaves they owned in clear violation of any pronouncement about equality and God given natural rights. It was a lie when they wrote it because they DID NOT BELIEVE IN NATURAL RIGHTS as their own actions, their own behaviors, and their own deeds clearly show anyone with eyes. THE DID NOT BELIEVE THE CRAP THEY WERE SPEWING. That was PR for the rubes.... the saps .... the suckers ..... the dilettantes who would read it and say "WOW... great stuff!!!"

    Just like the magician can fool the rubes by cutting the lady in half or like Chris Angel can levitate over the Luxxor in Vegas or like David Copperfield can make a jet vanish to a linked crowd surrounding it.... its stuff that the perpetrator does not believe but only engages in for their own private purposes using the gullible as unwitting saps.

    But the real question to you Turtle is why do you buy that nonsense when you are an educated person who is not the wide eyed virginal naive sap that others are simply through ignorance?

    Why?

    and the US supreme court in Cruikshank clearly ratified, accepted and affirmed that position.
    So the court in Cruikshank said they were in the audience and saw with their own two eyes as Doug Henning cut a woman in half and then magically rejoined her together.

    Thats pretty funny.

    It still does not make it so even if the justices in Cruikshank want to say 100,000 times that they and Bert Lahr as the lion in OZ - do believe in spooks... or faeries... or natural rights or any other such nonsense.

    You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 16 of 60 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •