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 36 of 60 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 595

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

  1. #351
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    And what principle of sociology provides verifiable evidence that natural rights exist outside of a belief system?

    And did a study of sociology permit you to design this question



    What is the RIGHT answer to this question and why is it the right one?
    What is the WRONG answer to this question and why is it the wrong one?

    And how does this question provide anyone with verifiable evidence that natural rights exist outside of a believers belief system?
    It isn't a question of sociology, but of the nature of things, including humans. Our most fundamental natural right is the right to self-defense, which is the most essential component of our nature. Government does not grant that right. It is my right as a natural being to try whatever means I can, to preserve my own life.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  2. #352
    Sage

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

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    It isn't a question of sociology, but of the nature of things, including humans. Our most fundamental natural right is the right to self-defense, which is the most essential component of our nature. Government does not grant that right. It is my right as a natural being to try whatever means I can, to preserve my own life.
    You are confusing a RIGHT with an ability or instinct.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #353
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You are confusing a RIGHT with an ability or instinct.
    That is where natural rights arise from. They are not a social construct.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  4. #354
    Sage

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

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    That is where natural rights arise from. They are not a social construct.
    You are confusing an instinct that creatures have or a physical ability or a response with a right. Calling an instinct a right does not make it so. Calling a physical ability of physical response a right does not make it so.

    So your initial examples are flawed.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #355
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Proof and Facts

    The string has diverged from the OP.
    But some thoughts on this latest part:

    1. There are No "natural Rights" (like there is No god), just recent/modern Culture-Specific norms that are Not even universal.
    'Rights' are culture-specific concepts backed by law.. and ever-changing and varied even within those cultures. Voting/who votes/etc.

    2. The founders, as TD said, did however, believe in the concept.
    Bill of Rights Institute: Natural Rights | Bill of Rights Institute
    Though obviously most of the Bill of Rights is anything but "natural". All humans are born with "Freedom of Press"?

    3. Jefferson was strongly against slavery even though he [somewhat hypocritically] owned them.
    "..Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation."
    And more:
    Thomas Jefferson and Slavery Thomas Jefferson

    3b. Jefferson believed Blacks were somewhat subhuman and ergo did Not share the same "Natural Rights" as whites, and when freed should be separated from them.
    Not unlike a 'separate race' view one could read on a White Supremacist board today.
    again see link above/excerpt below monticello.org, which is not anti-Jefferson.

    ...Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his Racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “Separate nations” who could Not live together peacefully in the same country.

    Jefferson’s belief that blacks were Racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential consequence of emancipation.

    Jefferson wrote that slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” He thought that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery.
    To emancipate slaves on American soil, Jefferson thought, would result in a large-scale race war that would be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. But he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union. Jefferson’s latter prediction was correct: in 1861, the contest over slavery sparked a bloody civil war and the creation of two nations—Union and Confederacy—in the place of one.
    Last edited by mbig; 11-01-14 at 07:38 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  6. #356
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You are confusing an instinct that creatures have or a physical ability or a response with a right. Calling an instinct a right does not make it so. Calling a physical ability of physical response a right does not make it so.

    So your initial examples are flawed.
    No, I'm not confusing it at all. Natural rights arise from nature, and are not dependent on the approval of others, because they don't require aggression in order to obtain or secure them, but they DO require aggression by others to be taken away.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  7. #357
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Are we ignoring the history that the same men who claimed to believe in natural rights kept those who they claimed were EQUAL and the right from their Creator to life and liberty in a condition of slavery where the very rights they professed to believe in were denied in the most serious way they could be denied to those slaves?

    Is that the history we are denying?

    Or is it those who claim the Founders believed in natural rights that are denying the historical record of the actual conduct, actions and behavior of those same Founders?

    Is is 100% clear that the real deniers of history are the second group and the evidence is right here in this very thread by their postings.
    claiming that the founders excluded some men from the rights these founders cherished in no way is evidence that the founders sought to diminish the extent of the riigt.

    Can you find a single shred of evidence that deals with the extent of the right rather than its coverage?

    and again, the DOI was created by a different group of people than the BOR



  8. #358
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    claiming that the founders excluded some men from the rights these founders cherished in no way is evidence that the founders sought to diminish the extent of the riigt.

    Can you find a single shred of evidence that deals with the extent of the right rather than its coverage?

    and again, the DOI was created by a different group of people than the BOR

    It's the old "inalienable = inviolable" BS. Yes, the founders failed to observe the natural rights of some people. That's not a surprise given the historical context and political limitations therein.

  9. #359
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Sure it is. It explains why I understand the concept used by the founders to create the Constitution. Do you have another explanation as to why I have a grasp of this concept and others do not?

    Perhaps it's because I'm engaging in a conspiracy theory? No, that would be your position: "The Constitution is a lie and conspiracy to enslave mankind". The irony being that natural rights is a liberating concept (if one can grasp it).

    furthermore those who believed in natural rights would

    1) create and subsequently interpret any restriction on government power as expansively as possible

    2) create and interpret any grant of power to the federal government as narrowly as possible

    those interpretations of the 2A that are narrow or so extreme as to essentially abrogate any restrictions on the government are contrary to the belief system of the founders

    and interpretations of Sec 8 that manage to divine, concoct or conjure up powers for the federal government that are not specifically and clearly defined, are also contrary to the belief system of the founders



  10. #360
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    It's the old "inalienable = inviolable" BS. Yes, the founders failed to observe the natural rights of some people. That's not a surprise given the historical context and political limitations therein.
    the utter fail is claiming because blacks were not included, the rights for white citizens (i.e. the limitations on the federal government) are necessarily lesser as well. or claiming that since the signers of the DOI "lied" the authors of the bill of rights did not intended to have the extent of the right that they "pretended" they wanted.



Page 36 of 60 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •