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 29 of 60 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 595

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

  1. #281
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,935

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    again that is dishonest.
    No it is entirely 100% honest. You have stated that the Founders would never have given the federal government the powers over firearms because they believed in a pre-existing natural right to be armed.

    As such, that is the centerpiece tentpole around which your canvas is held up and the three ring circus performs under. Chop down that tentpole and you have nothing left. And that is what I have done.

    and your only support for such silliness is

    1) claiming the founders lied
    I did not merely claim it - I proved it using their own words, their own actions and the historical record.

    2) confusing the extent of a right with the coverage of the right
    If a right does not exist in reality - it can cover nobody.

    3) pretending that the issue turns on whether Natural rights exist rather than admitting what matters is DID THE FOUNDERS BELIEVE in natural rights
    Which I conclusively proved that they did not. Or do you again want to assert the falsehood that Jefferson, Franklin and others believed that Africans were not human beings or men and thus they were not lying? I thought that claim was especially notable.

    Or perhaps you want to return to your claim that because they wanted some rights from white men of property like themselves, they are exempt from lying about the term ALL MEN because they tried to cover their own asses while screwing everyone else not like them? And than makes them what exactly if not liars?

    Any other goal posts you want to move Turtle? Or will you settle for repeating the same old same old that has already been refuted and flushed away?
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-31-14 at 01:18 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #282
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    It depends, logic arguments don't need proof. You show the logic is not sound or try to claim one of the premises is false by providing proof of your own against all the premises.

    Sometimes people try to pressure proof for a logic argument, just to derail/hack a thread.

    And a problem with the internet is you can provide "proof" that pigs fly....
    yes, a logic argument doesn't need any links or outside voice to repeat it. Instead the logic must be addressed.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #283
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,924

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Moderator's Warning:
    Proof and Facts[W:76"283]
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    opinion noted, not shared. constantly arguing whether natural rights exist is diversionary. The only issue is how to interpret documents that were written by men who believed in natural rights

    so all of your rants about the existence of natural rights are DIVERSIONS
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Since it is the very centerpiece of your argument and has been effectively destroyed, I can see why you are so desperate to distance yourself from it.

    And since it is the centerpiece of your argument - NO DISCUSSION OF IT IS A DIVERSION but a direct head-on tackling of your key issue.
    This kind of thing needs to stop. Leave out personal comments, which have been liberally sprinkled over your discussion since last night, not just in these posts.

    To the rest of you, keep that in mind as well. Don't pick up where some of you left off last night. There is already an in-thread warning at #75.

    Moderator's Warning:
    Proof and Facts[W:76"283]That said, I'd suggest that people stop making things personal in this thread.


    Points and/or thread bans will be handed out.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We canít get lost in discrimination. We canít get lost in B.S. We canít get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  4. #284
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I have no problem with people believing in natural rights.... or the Faerie Kingdom .... or vampires .... or the Easter Bunny. It is fine with me.

    But please DO NOT tell me that the rights we have today because of the US COnstitution PRE-EXISTED before they were ever written down when they only existed in the confines of somebody's own beliefs. And not one person can freely exercise or use a right which only exists in anothers mind and does not exist in the law of the country in which they reside.

    If anyone says that natural rights pre-existed before written rights - they have a responsibility to prove it. Show me where they pre-existed and how people had the enjoyment and use of those rights before they were law.
    There is no way to prove whether natural rights exist.

    However my understanding is that at least a good portion (perhaps all) of the persons involved in debating/writing/signing the constitution and some of it's amendments DID believe natural rights existed, and they wrote the clauses to protect those rights.

    Thus it doesn't really matter whether you can prove natural rights exist or not - the key is whether you can convince others to support enshrining/codifying those rights into law.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #285
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,708

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    There is no way to prove whether natural rights exist.

    However my understanding is that at least a good portion (perhaps all) of the persons involved in debating/writing/signing the constitution and some of it's amendments DID believe natural rights existed, and they wrote the clauses to protect those rights.

    Thus it doesn't really matter whether you can prove natural rights exist or not - the key is whether you can convince others to support enshrining/codifying those rights into law.
    absolutely. So when there is a dispute-over what the founders intended-the first place to start is to examine whether the proffered interpretation would make sense and be supported by someone who believed in natural rights and wanted to guarantee the protection thereof.



  6. #286
    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
    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?

    since rights are negative law and not written down, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face.

    unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

  7. #287
    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
    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.
    no, you are deflecting by just stating, "natural rights only exist to the believers of natural rights", which is no answer .

    the declaration of independence IE u.s.code and its used in enabling laws support the fact of ........natural rights.

  8. #288
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,708

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    no, you are deflecting by just stating, "natural rights only exist to the believers of natural rights", which is no answer .

    the declaration of independence IE u.s.code and its used in enabling laws support the fact of ........natural rights.
    the key issue is what I noted in my last post. those who believed in natural rights would not create a partial or deficient recognition of a natural right as some have claimed. its not whether they exist in the metaphysical sense but rather if those who wrote the law in question believed ini them

    once we have established that the founders believed in natural rights (proven beyond any reasonable debate) then that proves our interpretation of the 2A (an expansive and universal prohibition on federal intrusions) and Sec 8 (a limited and specific grant of power) is correct



  9. #289
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    the key issue is what I noted in my last post. those who believed in natural rights would not create a partial or deficient recognition of a natural right as some have claimed. its not whether they exist in the metaphysical sense but rather if those who wrote the law in question believed ini them

    once we have established that the founders believed in natural rights (proven beyond any reasonable debate) then that proves our interpretation of the 2A (an expansive and universal prohibition on federal intrusions) and Sec 8 (a limited and specific grant of power) is correct

    natural rights of the people are stated in the federalist papers. #2

  10. #290
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,708

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    natural rights of the people are stated in the federalist papers. #2
    yes we know that and there is no denying that the "existence" of inalienable/natural rights is the presumption upon which the founders created the Constitution and the framework of the government



Page 29 of 60 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... 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
  •