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 38 of 60 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 595

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

  1. #371
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,043

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and I have explained that confusing the COVERAGE of a RIGHT with the EXTENT of a right is a bait and switch argument
    Actually, you have not explained it but rather simply stated that opinion. But here is your chance to explain what you mean in detail using law and examples.

    I think we are not understanding each other. Tell me what you mean by the extent of the right as opposed to if the right actually exists or if it covers anyone.

    And while you are at it please explain who exactly was there to enjoy and exercise and use this pre-existing natural right before it was ever placed into law.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #372
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Jefferson wrote the line. And Jefferson believed African were men. So lets flush that falsehood right now.
    Um...What falsehood?
    Education.

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

  3. #373
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,769

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Actually, you have not explained it but rather simply stated that opinion. But here is your chance to explain what you mean in detail using law and examples.

    I think we are not understanding each other. Tell me what you mean by the extent of the right as opposed to if the right actually exists or if it covers anyone.

    And while you are at it please explain who exactly was there to enjoy and exercise and use this pre-existing natural right before it was ever placed into law.
    lets uses the concept of a contract for insurance

    there are two issues

    what is the coverage of the contract (i.e who is covered-me, my wife or my son? how about someone borrowing my car? etc)

    and what is the extent of the coverage--i.e 4 million for liability, 1 million for uninsured drivers etc

    claiming that because the founders "lied' about who was entitled to their pronouncements is a complaint about coverage

    not extent



  4. #374
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,769

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Um...What falsehood?
    there is none and it certainly has no relevance to the extent of the rights Jefferson wanted to protect



  5. #375
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,043

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Um...What falsehood?
    the one you expressed in you 362

    IF someone believed that slaves didn't count as men, I can easily see them doing so.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  6. #376
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,043

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    lets uses the concept of a contract for insurance

    there are two issues

    what is the coverage of the contract (i.e who is covered-me, my wife or my son? how about someone borrowing my car? etc)

    and what is the extent of the coverage--i.e 4 million for liability, 1 million for uninsured drivers etc

    claiming that because the founders "lied' about who was entitled to their pronouncements is a complaint about coverage

    not extent

    Let us use what we are talking about in this discussion and it is not insurance.

    If you claim that there is a pre-existing natural right and it is existent only in the minds of a believer then that so called natural right is NOT protecting anyone, it is not exercised by anyone, and it is not used by anyone since it is only an idea. The right does not actually exist in our physical world with real people being able to exercise it.

    Your bogus comparison to an insurance policy is totally inappropriate.

    Jefferson and the Founders defined the universe to which they claimed natural rights applied and that universe was ALL MEN. And they named some of the rights they claimed ALL MEN had including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson - who wrote most of the document - was a slave owner. Franklin - who helped with some clean-up language and ideas - was a slave owner. Many of the signers were slave owners. They took a position on paper which was an outright lie as none of those men believed it because their very daily actions were 100% contrary and opposite the position they took. Keeping a human being in a position of slavery denied them Equality, denied them Life, denied them Liberty and denied them their own Pursuit of Happiness.

    That is the issue and anything else is a denial of reality that people who owned slaves and denied their equality, their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness believed in natural rights for all men. Their everyday real world actions were totally and completely opposite the flowery language they used to sell their actions to the nation and the world. Their statement of belief in natural rights was a self serving ersatz philosophical statement designed to fool the gullible and politically naive.

    It is no different than a pedophile stating that that child abuse is morally wrong while at the same moment buggering a child. Their words say one thing while their actions say another. And there are many many different ways to say something that most people learn in life - ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. And when it comes to the self serving words of politicians - you can write that bit of wisdom in big fat block letters 1,000 feet high on the side of a mountain in bright neon paint.

    John Locke, a man tied to the very start of the natural rights theory knew this well
    “I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
    ― John Locke
    And the actions of Jefferson and many of the signers were those of a denial of equality and any so called natural rights than came with it. And one of the fathers of the natural rights theory would not have been fooled.

    “Words can be twisted into any shape. Promises can be made to lull the heart and seduce the soul. In the final analysis, words mean nothing. They are labels we give things in an effort to wrap our puny little brains around their underlying natures, when ninety-nine percent of the time the totality of the reality is an entirely different beast. The wisest man is the silent one. Examine his actions. Judge him by them.”
    ― Karen Marie Moning
    Examine and judge a man by his actions. Not really complicated stuff now is it?

    “Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often.”
    ― Mark Twain
    “I am not imposed upon by fine words; I can see what actions mean.”
    ― George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-02-14 at 07:03 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. #377
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,769

    Re: Proof and Facts

    tl but that does not address the point nor shore up the faulty argument confusing extent with coverage

    there is absolutely no evidence that the founders intended to limit the extent of natural rights



  8. #378
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,043

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    tl
    Which is shorthand for 'unable to refute anything said'.

    but that does not address the point nor shore up the faulty argument confusing extent with coverage
    It utterly and completely destroyed your faulty use of the comparison to insurance and showed that the Founders declared a universe of ALL MEN that they were including as covered by natural rights.

    You see Turtle - the Founder both declared WHO was covered and WHAT was covered.They covered all the bases and there is no confusion between your two elements.


    Jefferson and the Founders defined the universe to which they claimed natural rights applied and that universe was ALL MEN. And they named some of the rights they claimed ALL MEN had including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson - who wrote most of the document - was a slave owner. Franklin - who helped with some clean-up language and ideas - was a slave owner. Many of the signers were slave owners. They took a position on paper which was an outright lie as none of those men believed it because their very daily actions were 100% contrary and opposite the position they took. Keeping a human being in a position of slavery denied them Equality, denied them Life, denied them Liberty and denied them their own Pursuit of Happiness.

    That is the issue and anything else is a denial of reality that people who owned slaves and denied their equality, their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness believed in natural rights for all men. Their everyday real world actions were totally and completely opposite the flowery language they used to sell their actions to the nation and the world. Their statement of belief in natural rights was a self serving ersatz philosophical statement designed to fool the gullible and politically naive.

    So now that we have thoroughly disposed of that line of argument, perhaps you can get to the heart of the matter and tell us how a belief in natural rights actually "pre-existed" in the real world creating actual rights that people could use and enjoy when those natural rights were only a belief in somebody's head?
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-02-14 at 12:10 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

  9. #379
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:16 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,753

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    Is it appropriate to demand proof and facts on Debate Politics?

    From my observation 100% of posters on Debate Politics are anonymous. This is also the internet where words can be typed in any order to say anything imaginable. Concrete evidence can rarely be presented via the internet. I also think this is a place to express your opinion on interesting and non-interesting topics. Can't a person base their opinion upon a lie? Just because their opinion is based upon a lie this doesn't make their opinion any less valid. After all, it's an opinion. An opinion doesn't really hold much weight anyways. Sure occasionally an opinion can change someone's mind but that doesn't make it authoritative.

    What do you guys think? Are proof and facts necessary when presenting your opinion?
    I agree that opinions are just opinions, however, when an assertion is made that is an attack; which happenes here every day, then in my view such assertions should be backed up by fact. The internet is a very good source actually for proofs to validate opinions and assertions: there are articles and papers by the millions out there. I think we all like being on these forums because; face it, we all love to argue.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  10. #380
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,769

    Re: Proof and Facts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Which is shorthand for 'unable to refute anything said'.



    It utterly and completely destroyed your faulty use of the comparison to insurance and showed that the Founders declared a universe of ALL MEN that they were including as covered by natural rights.

    You see Turtle - the Founder both declared WHO was covered and WHAT was covered.They covered all the bases and there is no confusion between your two elements.


    Jefferson and the Founders defined the universe to which they claimed natural rights applied and that universe was ALL MEN. And they named some of the rights they claimed ALL MEN had including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson - who wrote most of the document - was a slave owner. Franklin - who helped with some clean-up language and ideas - was a slave owner. Many of the signers were slave owners. They took a position on paper which was an outright lie as none of those men believed it because their very daily actions were 100% contrary and opposite the position they took. Keeping a human being in a position of slavery denied them Equality, denied them Life, denied them Liberty and denied them their own Pursuit of Happiness.

    That is the issue and anything else is a denial of reality that people who owned slaves and denied their equality, their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness believed in natural rights for all men. Their everyday real world actions were totally and completely opposite the flowery language they used to sell their actions to the nation and the world. Their statement of belief in natural rights was a self serving ersatz philosophical statement designed to fool the gullible and politically naive.

    So now that we have thoroughly disposed of that line of argument, perhaps you can get to the heart of the matter and tell us how a belief in natural rights actually "pre-existed" in the real world creating actual rights that people could use and enjoy when those natural rights were only a belief in somebody's head?

    so your only argument is the claim the founders really didn't want the rights they sought to recognize

    not much of an argument.

    but then again, men who wanted natural rights for themselves would not limit a recognition of such rights. can you prove otherwise?

    and merely saying the founders "lied" by not including blacks etc in the DOI, in no way proves your expansive interpretation of Sec 8 to grant the government all sorts of unmentioned powers is correct



Page 38 of 60 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... 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
  •