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 27 of 60 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 595

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

  1. #261
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    statements of fellow true believers in the theory of natural rights does not make them exist outside of a belief system.

    deflection

  2. #262
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,845

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    deflection
    Apparently you are confusing the words DEFLECTION and TRUTH. Statements of belief by other believers do not prove the beliefs exist outside of the belief system. That is simply reality.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  3. #263
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I see. So you just got your entire argument destroyed with me using evidence and exposing your falsehoods so all of the sudden something you have been battling for for hours is no longer relevant.

    If it were not such an obvious and blatant concession of surrender it might even be considered as funny - in a sad and rather lonely fashion.



    I have answered it repeatedly and forcefully and clearly.The Founders NEVER talked about rights for only a limited group. They talked about natural rights for ALL MEN and then said they WERE CREATED EQUAL. And we have seen from the citations I produced about Jefferson that your statement that they did not consider Africans as men is a falsehood.

    So your statement that they only intended natural rights for themselves is another falsehood.



    And what we have established is that using the Declaration and using the words of Jefferson himself, they were NOT stating a belief in natural rights only for themselves. So your entire argument now fails right out of the gate.

    You can create all the fiction you want about Africans not being men in the Founders eyes , and you can invent all the new language you want to justify slavery, but the reality is that you made both up and have been caught doing so.
    not relevant. the only issue is the extent of the right and the beliefs of the founders completely deny your claims that the right was set forth to allow "infringements"



  4. #264
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,845

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    not relevant. the only issue is the extent of the right and the beliefs of the founders completely deny your claims that the right was set forth to allow "infringements"
    When you use the defense of NOT RELEVANT it more often than not means you have no way to refute what was said to destroy your position. And that is what has happened to your position over the last several pages. We discovered that your position
    1- centers around the so called beliefs of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration,
    2 - the Founders did not truly believe the nonsense they professed to believe in
    3- effectively rendering the statements of Jefferson and the other signers just so much public relations pap for the gullible and naive
    4 - leaving you with nothing except a paddle up the river Denial as you furiously attempt to change course several times only to be drowned yet again

    You have nothing left Turtle. All your arguments have been shown to be false and without foundation and it was done using the documents themselves, the actions of the founders themselves, the views of the founders themselves and exposing your own invention of positions you tried to claim they held that were proven false.

    And all this in a thread about proof and evidence. And that is entirely appropriate and should be a lesson for all.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #265
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    When you use the defense of NOT RELEVANT it more often than not means you have no way to refute what was said to destroy your position. And that is what has happened to your position over the last several pages. We discovered that your position
    1- centers around the so called beliefs of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration,
    2 - the Founders did not truly believe the nonsense they professed to believe in
    3- effectively rendering the statements of Jefferson and the other signers just so much public relations pap for the gullible and naive
    4 - leaving you with nothing except a paddle up the river Denial as you furiously attempt to change course several times only to be drowned yet again

    You have nothing left Turtle. All your arguments have been shown to be false and without foundation and it was done using the documents themselves, the actions of the founders themselves, the views of the founders themselves and exposing your own invention of positions you tried to claim they held that were proven false.

    And all this in a thread about proof and evidence. And that is entirely appropriate and should be a lesson for all.
    1) the issue is not your silly claims that the founders actually did not believe in a right to keep and bear arms merely because you think the DOI was a Lie (BTW have you figured out that those who signed the DOI and those who ratified the BOR are not the same set of people)

    2) the only issue is what is the extent of the right they recognized in the 2A

    and you have ZERO evidence that the founders wished to limit that right or they did not believe in that right as applied to them and other citizens

    all rest of your silly evasion is just that

    you are using a fraudulent argument that because you claim that those who signed the DOI didn't really believe it extended to all men therefore those who wrote and ratified the Bill of RIghts didn't believe those rights applied to THEM

    you again have confused the extent of the right with the coverage of the right

    big difference



  6. #266
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,845

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    1) the issue is
    that you claim there is a natural right which has never existed outside of a belief system.

    All the rest is you trying to move the goal posts to a different arena in a different city after your arguments were completely crushed and flushed last evening.

    Perhaps you want to tell us more about how Jefferson did not consider Africans as people?

    Or perhaps you can wax eloquently about how he only wanted to give rights to white men like himself despite stating that the rights from the Creator were held by ALL MEN?

    Or perhaps where outside of a belief system held by a willful believer who believes because they want to believe we can find where this "pre-existing natural right" actually existed in reality?

    Or perhaps you can finally answer key question as to if the belief in natural rights is only part of a belief system and cannot be found to actualy exist in the physical world, who then was able to exercise and use and enjoy that same right that was only a belief?
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-31-14 at 11:11 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #267
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,845

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    natural rights are recognized by the constitution . The 5th and 14th amendments state ..life liberty and property

    and yes they believed in natural rights, which preexisted the constitution....which is why rights are only recognized
    So where exactly do we find these pre-existing natural rights outside of a persons belief system before constitutions or law?

    And these so called pre-existing natural rights ... if they only existed in the belief system of believers, who then actually had those rights to exercise and use as rights?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  8. #268
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    that you claim there is a natural right which has never existed outside of a belief system.

    All the rest is you trying to move the goal posts to a different arena in a different city after your arguments were completely crushed and flushed last evening.

    Perhaps you want to tell us more about how Jefferson did not consider Africans as people?

    Or perhaps you can wax eloquently about how he only wanted to give rights to white men like himself despite stating that the rights from the Creator were held by ALL MEN?

    Or perhaps where outside of a belief system held by a willful believer who believes because they want to believe we can find where this "pre-existing natural right" actually existed in reality?

    Or perhaps you can finally answer key question as to if the belief in natural rights is only part of a belief system and cannot be found to actualy exist in the physical world, who then was able to exercise and use and enjoy that same right that was only a belief?
    again whether natural rights exist or not is not relevant

    what is relevant is the beliefs and desires of the men who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights

    the beliefs of the founders are of central importance in determining what they intended with the constitution an the BOR

    and that is why your arguments spend so much time dancing around that point and why your posts constantly divert, distort, evade and obfuscate this central matter

    the fact is, the founders belief system is INCOMPATIBLE with your extremely narrow, specious and fraudulent interpretation of what the 2A means in terms of its limitations on federal governmental action. WHY? because

    1) it is contrary to the concept of natural rights

    2) it is contrary to every written document from that era that deals with the topic of armed citizens

    3) it makes no sense given the environment and the entire premise of the Constitution

    SO WHAT DO YOU DO?

    you pretend that those who wrote the DOI Lied and from that you make the fanciful and fraudulent deduction that men who did not include slaves i their DOI pronouncements were actually Lying about other documents that were authored 15 or so years later by a different group of men

    that is the entire substance of your argument

    They LIED about the DOI they (a different set of "they") so they MUST HAVE LIED about the Bill of Rights

    that fails because in the DOI the limitation is the coverage not the extent

    and you are arguing extent rather than coverage as to the 2A which is a completely specious "bait and switch"

    game set match Haymarket.



  9. #269
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,845

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    again whether natural rights exist or not is not relevant
    It is the centerpiece and tentpole of your very case Turtle. And it has been destroyed from every possible angle.

    You cannot show us natural rights ever existed outside of a believers willful belief system.

    You cannot show us they pre-existed before law or constitutions.

    You cannot show us the Founders of our government believed in natural rights.

    You cannot show us how actual people used or exercised natural rights that only existed in a persons belief system.

    You cannot support anything you claim. So you attempt to change the subject and declare all you fought for and argued as now suddenly irrelevant.

    All the rest is you trying to move the goal posts to a different arena in a different city after your arguments were completely crushed and flushed last evening.

    Perhaps you want to tell us more about how Jefferson did not consider Africans as people?

    Or perhaps you can wax eloquently about how he only wanted to give rights to white men like himself despite stating that the rights from the Creator were held by ALL MEN?

    Or perhaps where outside of a belief system held by a willful believer who believes because they want to believe we can find where this "pre-existing natural right" actually existed in reality?

    Or perhaps you can finally answer key question as to if the belief in natural rights is only part of a belief system and cannot be found to actualy exist in the physical world, who then was able to exercise and use and enjoy that same right that was only a belief?

    And this time, please do not ignore these points or beg off claiming it is just too much to read.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  10. #270
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    It is the centerpiece and tentpole of your very case Turtle. And it has been destroyed from every possible angle.

    You cannot show us natural rights ever existed outside of a believers willful belief system.

    You cannot show us they pre-existed before law or constitutions.

    You cannot show us the Founders of our government believed in natural rights.

    You cannot show us how actual people used or exercised natural rights that only existed in a persons belief system.

    YOu cannot support anything you claim.
    1) again you have destroyed nothing but your own argument

    2) the existence of natural rights is not at issue

    3) your claim that the founders did not believe in natural rights for citizens is without any merit

    4) you continue to deliberately confuse Extent of a right with coverage by the right

    5) you continue to engage in avoidance and evasion

    6) none of your evasive actions support your specious interpretation of the Second Amendment

    7) you have provided no evidence rebutting the fact that the founders believed in natural rights

    8) the only issue is the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

    9) your interpretation is supported by absolutely no evidence, proof, logic or rational deduction

    a) rather your interpretation is based on YOUR OPINION that some of the founders lied when they signed the DOI

    b) no document from that era supports your nonsense



Page 27 of 60 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •